General Petraeus plan will prolong war....Candidates fail to ask why.

Although this is pretty late, I have not had time to get on here and splinter my soapbox

I am sure many of us saw the candidates and their interview with Gen. Petraeus after his return. His assessment of the war after the surge, was that the surge itself was working ( which even the media had to agree at some level) The highlights as listed by the General were:

Overall violence down
Iraqi Security Forces were improving
Political Goals were being met
The Iraqi Economy was growing

the General further speaking on the Challenges stated "Progress is fragile and reversible" and that although progress remained slow that there was no end in sight.........then this is what came next........

we will drop to pre-surge levels this summer......WHAT?

Did any of the candidates address the obvious question here...NO. In fact there was no reality in the political statements concerning the nature of the relationship of the war as a whole. For or against the war looking at the above statements it is irrelevant what you believe, if your war machine is making slow progress that is reversible and you drop to pre-surge levels you are asking to prolong the war by taking it back to the situation that was occuring during the pre-surge levels. Obama continued with his statement that "I continue to believe that the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive blunder." and Hillary had opposed the surge and wanted an orderly withdrawal. McCain did not even bother to ask for at least a artificial time table of withdrawal based on progress.....and anyway who cares, The US is there, they need to be in it to win it. Mr. Obama who cares if you think it was a blunder what are you going to do if you win the US Presidency. None of the candidates asked any intelligent questions of the General they were just campaigning.

Then all of the WAR EXPERTS whatever that means, qoute Clausewitz and how war is an extension of politics..No it is not, it is a failure of politics. Politics and war do not go hand in hand, political interference hinders the warfighters efforts to regain control so that politics can resume. I am not saying there should not be ROE or a Geneva convention to protect troops, which by in large throughout history has never protected US troops. The US need candidates that truly understand the changing face of the enemy, the mistakes made from the start of the war, the geography, factions, political and religious history..which in this case cannot be separated and how all of this plays a huge role in any withdrawal plans. Do they relize that the Sharia demands that Islam repel its invaders before attacking on the enemies soil. Mac Arthur implied conducting half wars (A war in which political endeavors hinder total victory) by making appeasement undermines war efforts and will lead to the cause of future blood shed. All of these thing must be taken into account.

But candidates disserviced themselves by using a Q and A opportunity as a soapbox to run a campaign, further their politics and make points about past and present political opposition, instead of asking the obvious question about a summer pre-surge troop reduction which will do nothing but prolong the position the US is already in. A position in which they all wish to bring an end to, on their own level. I hope Americans realize that although they oppose Republicns because they want to withdraw from this war, that Hillary wants to fall back to put airpower and have reserves for Darfur and Obama just wants to transfer troops to finish what he feels was left wanting in Afghanistan. Either way there is no End in sight.