I would think that a more basic question would be: Should a military man who has repeatedly lied to congress about military situations be promoted in the military?

Good question Jeremy... with a somewhat obvious answer.

Bush found his frontman, who would not only take Bush's pathological obsession with Iraq as his mission, he would make it his own and make it seemed like military calculus, even at the price of applying domestic political logic to a foreign affairs matter of great import.

When Bush/Cheney say 'sic um' to Petraeus on Iran, Petreaus is already primed to conduct another crusade, whatever the price to the US.

Beware of Generals on white horses. I see a Truman/McArthur revisit when Bush is gone and Petraeus is told the mission is withdrawal and to present a plan. This time the NYC tickertape parade will be done for Petraeus using CDO's and other worthless paper that that the Fed has taken as 'colateral' for hundreds of billions of bailout treasury notes for the Wall Street biggies. GOP: Petraeus in 2112 - To Save the Nation GOP

Ohhhh, so true. So true in fact it makes you wonder if Barack Obama is sooooo committed to surrendering in Iraq, he won't consider the regional implications. He's sooo committed to his position, how could he possibly think at all once he's President.

Blue Girl points to McCain's asking Petraeus about Afghanistan last week, and wants to know if McCain had been tipped off to this....

http://bluegirlredmissouri.blogspot.com/2008/04/its-kabuki-thingyou-wouldnt-understand.html

Here's a question; can anyone who has an opinion about the potential for future positive developments in Iraq escape being labeled a Bush crony?

I mean, clearly, it doesn't matter that Petraeus is a well-decorated, Princeton educated General who wrote the book on counterinsurgency and is helping the military recover from the damage of Rumsfeld.

The guy has embraced anthropologists and cultural specialists on the left, and has a great deal of experience, both in practice and in theory, and is well respected by every person who meets him.

Yet he is "lying" to politicians and simply another Bush crony.

Yikes. Have fun playing in your sandbox boys and girls, the grownups are going to talk about issues elsewhere...

Well this might be a minority opinion, but I think this decreases the likely hood of an intervention in to Iran. Petraeus is so focused on stabilizing and maintaining the current position in Iraq I believe he would be very loath to upset the apple cart by attacking Iran. Of course it's the Civilian executive that will decide these things, so it's not like he has that much pull, still I can't really see this as a bad thing. Even if I disagree with his assessment of the Iraq situation.

You're over-analyzing. Petraeus has demonstrated that he's a good general by saying what Bush wants to hear. That is the *definition* of a good general. If he was a bad general (by saying things Bush didn't want said), he would have been fired, just like the 15 or so other generals who have been fired for exactly that reason. But since he's a good general, he gets promoted.

Nobody knows or cares how well he'll do in the job. Job performance is literally immaterial to advancement. Reading Spencer Ackerman or anyone else analysing his expected job performance is an utter waste of time.

On the whole Truman/MacArthur thing if Obama gets into office, it's pretty clear that the military isn't going to listen to the guy at all. I have military friends who tell me nobody in uniform will give a shit about what Prez Obama says since he's now got the reputation as an elitist who despises the lower class whites, exactly the class that makes up so much of the military and with whom the brass are sympathetic. Obama would be lucky to get a salute that consists of more than one finger.

2 more things on the military. First, most people in uniform also hate what they know of Obama's policies and his assocations, esp. the bomb thrower professor Aires. Secondly, while they mostly hate Hillary with a purple passion they actually respect her in a way they never did Bubba.

Pretty hilarious Anonymous. I appreciate that you have a friend in the military (the liberal equivalent of having a black friend?), but your characterization is a joke. There will be shitheads in any organization, but military officers (commissioned and non-commissioned) will bite their tongue if they disagree with the future President (just as many do now with the current...) and follow all orders with a vigor and pride you can't conceive of.

By the way, I also love that apparently the entire US military has singular, nuanced positions ("we hate Hillary, but respect her more than Bill") that apparently you are privy to.

I have a little bit of experience with military personnel, and suffice to say, I think you are providing a fairly superficial rendering of relatively diverse political opinions (certainly more diverse than that offered on this website.)

In addition to what publius said above, at the end of 2007, Obama has more campaign contributions from any other candidate - except Ron Paul(!). Now most of this is an age factor (median military member is about 25), and I haven't since any numbers recently, but it is at odds with the assertion that the members of the military will not 'give a shit about Prez Obama'

Kolohe means, Obama has more campaign contributions from members of the military (I believe Ron Paul is second in military campaign contributions, not first).

Let's face it: they vote with their dollars, and the military loves the candidates who promise to bring them home: Obama and Paul.