I can understand a certain amount of skepticism about the President's ability and judgment in picking senior leaders, but in his most recent editorial, Jeff Huber seems to take that as license to cast aspersions on a truly accomplished man who may just be the right man in the right place at the right time.

Huber’s main point -- and I hesitate to call it a point -- seems to be that in spite of the praise heaped on Petraeus, he is overrated.

Huber writes, "Supporters of Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, hail him as our best and brightest military officer and one who knows how to conduct counter-insurgency warfare. His detractors seem of the opinion that the thing Petraeus knows how to do best is make himself look good."

I am virtually certain I could poll those who knew Cdr. Huber during his seagoing days and that some would say he was a very competent naval flight officer and some that he was useless. So? This type of weak character . . . I would leave it short of assassination . . . maybe character noogie-ing . . . is hardly a substantive look at the man or the mission.

Huber again:  "This is not to imply that Petraeus is a spineless yes man. He probably does believe in the escalation strategy and in his own ability to pull it off. But beliefs and reality aren't always the same things. Believing to the depths of one's soul that the moon is made of green cheese doesn't make it so."

For one military officer to say that another only "probably" believes in his own counter-insurgency strategy is a shot at his honor, and I don't think Huber ought to go there, He also tries to brand our new tactics  "the escalation strategy" as he attempts to paint this as the Son of Stay the Course.

The reason there is hope about Petraeus is that we obviously followed the wrong course before; now we are fighting an insurgency with counter-insurgency tactics and it seems to be working. That is notable and not something Huber can write off as more of the same. He also shows complete tone deafness by quoting economics professor and quite serious loon Paul Krugman to ridiculously support a point on a military topic. He even uses Krugman to continue the new refrain on the "War is Lost" front:  Petraeus is going to lie to us.

Another excerpt:  "His tenure as the officer in charge of training Iraqi troops and police clearly did not go well, despite his praise in a 2004 Washington Post article titled ‘Battling for Iraq’ of the progress being made by the fledgling Iraqi security forces under his tutelage. Of the article, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote ‘General Petraeus, without saying anything falsifiable, conveyed the totally misleading impression, highly convenient for his political masters, that victory was just around the corner.’"

So Huber uses someone clueless about the military to refute a Washington Post story that remarkably has good things to say about the military and Petraeus. In so doing he is basically prepping the battlefield for the fight to discredit any progress in Iraq. Huber and the defeateds know this war has been lost for a long time, maybe since before Cheney dreamed it up. 

I can’t sit by and watch their assaults on a good man and the truth on the ground. Further, Cdr. Huber should consider the consequences of the defeat he is trying to sell.  And as a retired O-5, why is it so hard for him to get his head around the ability of the U.S. military to eventually find the right man at the right place and the right time?  

Sorry it messes with your narrative, commander, but I think Petareus has a shot at something that can fairly be called victory. You wave your white flag; I'm blowing the Cavalry charge.