Reply #10: An excellent article...

[ljm2002]

...thanks for posting this.

From the article:

There is only one plausible explanation for Petraeus’s terminating a surge that has (he says) enabled coalition forces, however tentatively, to gain the upper hand. That explanation is politics—of the wrong kind.

Given the current situation as Petraeus describes it, an incremental reduction in U.S. troop strength makes sense only in one regard: it serves to placate each of the various Washington constituencies that Petraeus has a political interest in pleasing.

(I would argue that there is another plausible explanation for Petraeus's terminating the surge, namely, that he doesn't believe the blather about its success in the first place. But this is a quibble.)

Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly.

(emphasis mine) So there you have it folks: Petraeus has "broken faith with" (i.e., betrayed) the soldiers he commands. I await the outcry from the Beltway pundits, and the resulting censure from Congress, with bated breath.