General Petraeus and George Bush: A disconnect

When General Petraeus said he was unsure whether or not his mission in Iraq made Americans safer, it may have been a gaffe. A real gaffe... in the Kinsley sense. I don't really know, but I sort of don't think so. My guess is that, after days of testimony, and weeks of growing confused about his role as a soldier cum apparatchick, he just got stuck. His job was to a). sell the Congress and the country on the war without b). betraying (yes, betraying) the fact that he was speaking as much for the president as he was for his mission. His answer--"I don't know"--to that question was, if I had to guess, less an instance of inadvertent honesty than it was a poorly calculated way to impress upon everybody watching that he's not politicking--that he has, as a soldier, a singular task before him and that his eyes never turn away from Iraq. Not even for a second.

I almost sympathize with him. But in the end this only brings to light the giant expanse between how George Bush casts Petraeus and what Petraeus can accomplish (or even claim his role to be) without showing his hand. Bush says "winning" in Iraq is critical to American safety. He also says he's handed over responsibility for success there to General Petraeus, who deserves our trust because he's so honorable. Tall order. But that setup leaves Petraeus in an uncomfortable position, especially when he's faced with members of the Senate: He can't claim to be everything the president says he is, but neither can he suggest that his mission is anything but completely essential for American security. He must either sacrifice his mission-minded reputation as a soldier and toe the Bush line, or call into question the value of the mission itself. On Tuesday, I think we saw a man desperately trying to have it both ways and failing badly.