Best Defense: What do you think Americans aren't noticing about your Area of Responsibility right now that you think they should?

"General Petraeus: Americans are, I think, up to speed on the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq and, to a lesser degree perhaps, with respect to Iran."

Riiiiight.

Tom, isn't part of the CENTCOM job to direct unwanted oversight attention away from certain areas, towards preripheral issues? An interview that cooperates in that effort does raise questions in my mind.

Am I expecting too much in hoping for questions that force engagement in exactly those areas that the general points away from?

As Lincoln pointed out to Grant, winning the war would seem to be a necessary steppingstone.

Thanks Tom for your effort to squeeze something out of Petraeus. While Petraeus is the perfect model of a modern general and even throws in some folksy humility and political discretion he doesn’t seem to have anything to say. This is not peculiar to Petraeus but pretty much sums up the futility of interviewing high profile public servants. Being old enough to clearly remember interviews of Gen. Westmorland, Robert McNamara etc., the combination of evasive and confidence building statements is uncannily similar. Hopefully the ultimate results will not be.

One last thing and a small matter to many, I notice somewhere that Petraeus stated that the ‘public’ expects us (big shot brass) to wear all our medal and decorations. Really? Is there a public clamor out there that he should pose himself in the fashion of a tin pot Latin American dictator? One would expect such a turn out from the likes of a Soviet Marshal but from the highest profile military representative of the United States a democratic republic? George Washington, indeed, nearly all the founders (maybe Hamilton would be an exception) would consider this pomposity as pretentiously at odds with a free people who should not worship militarism.

...but the second question on piracy? Unless you're in the business of insuring shipping, it just doesn't get on the list. Economic issue, not military, of concern to shippers, not nations. Time to beat some other dead horse.

Tom Ricks has done better interviews. Mark Bowden did a much better interview with Gen. Petraeus for his magazine story.

This one is really just a series of loaded questions, mixed with direct questions no one in Petraeus's position could answer directly without complicating his mission. Who's going to be the next Iraqi Prime Minister? Is it time for a "night of the long knives" in Afghanistan (seriously unfortunate choice of metaphor there, incidentally)? Why is the Navy leaving the heavy lifting on piracy to other NATO forces? The only right answer to questions of this kind is "no comment," which is pretty much the answer Petraeus gave.

I was surprised, also, that Ricks asked no questions following up Bowden's story. There was a lot of material there. Incidentally, I believe Petraeus when he says he isn't running for President. Thinking one could do the job and wanting to submit oneself to the process of campaigning for the job are two different things; I'd be surprised if Petraeus had never done the first, but doubt he's ever been tempted to become a candidate.

I'm going to put it bluntly: Petraeus talks a lot without saying anything. It might be a good trait for a soldier, but it means there's not much point in interviews.

Maybe Mr. Ricks should have asked His Majesty why he and his fellow flag officers are unable to win wars? Perhaps a good question would be to ask what happened to all those AK-47´s? Another good one would be why does he have so much tin and ribbon on his costume, for a guy with no time in the line?

Our brave enlisted men and women are being led by self centered politicians wearing costumes. Never in our history have our enlisted people been so utterly betrayed.

It appears some feel the CENTCOM didn't say anything - maybe he did say something? General Petraeus stated in his interview he thought the book, "Grant Takes Command," should be better known.

The book is actually the last of three culminating in Ulysses S. Grant's maturation as the general we know, his increasing political savvy, and of course defeating Bobby Lee.

Perhaps Petraeus sees a parallel to himself with the difficulties that faced Grant, both given command at a low period during wars by presidents that settled on them where others had failed – to some extent I agree (remember, many felt Grant wasn’t up to the task and history proves otherwise).

Anyhow, I'm reasonably sure Bush thought Petraeus was his man, and also that he was Petraeus' man. Or am I thinking of Lincoln in regard to Grant? One wonders if President Obama feels the same way?

Indeed! Run General, Run! Your country needs a leader who is not ashamed to be the President of the greatest country in the world.

to aspire to be president.

Maybe, in earlier days, the issues of war and peace dominated the White House's role. Maybe, in an even earlier past, the large-scale administrative skills needed to run an army and a national government (aka Jackson, Grant, etc...) were more easily transferrable to the White House.

General Petreaus is both too well educated, and too understanding of himself and that office to believe that he would enjoy it as a retirement career.

Let's see...he could be a Senator from some state (maybe not NH), and have a great time in that rarified club, or just join a few corporate boards (defense), and live far beyond his current means, but without any hassles.

Or, after a long career with years in the intensive glare, he could try to talk his wife into joining him on a brutal and uncertain campaign trail for two years with the only downside being that if he actually gets elected they would be confined to the grueling White House demands for four or eight years. Brutal economic issues defining everything old front of him--each with a huge and nuances domestic and local constituency the like of which make tribal issues look like boy scouts.

I would be surprised if GP would make that choice at this time.

What US General since,1945, has won a war. Battles don't count.

We went from getting the snot nocked out of us by Japanese pilots to nuking them in, what a few years. How long did it take from losing the Arizona to steaming a large battleship into Japan and making their political world accept ours?

I have no idea why we dont use convoys when transporting US-bound goods to the US from the middle east. Instead of leaving immediately, the ships would leave in staggered intervals accompanied by warships. I'd like to see pirates taking on a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. There might be small shipping delays, but incidents of piracy would plummet.

Gents the hypocrisy in here is stifling. So many times we have heard (from many of you) that McChrystal or Cucolo or Odierno or indeed even Petraeus should keep their mouth shut and not say anything contrary to the current POTUS or National Command Authority.

Now here comes GP, and he gives you exactly what you wanted....sonorous platitudes. And the response is typical "he didn't say anything, he dodged the question."

My answer: be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.