In common parlance, the phrase “political general” is an epithet, the inverse of the warrior or frontline soldier. In any serious war, with big issues at stake, to assign command to a political general is to court disaster—so at least most Americans believe. But in fact, at the highest levels, successful command requires a sophisticated grasp of politics. At the summit, war and politics merge and become inextricably intertwined. A general in chief not fully attuned to the latter will not master the former.What Andrew Bacevich is saying is that Petraeus is a political hack and that's dangerous.
David Petraeus is a political general. Yet in presenting his recent assessment of the Iraq War and in describing the “way forward,” Petraeus demonstrated that he is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes.I think that qualifies as general "betray us". Will there be outrage on the right? Unlike the mindless diatribes of Rush Limbaugh this is from a leading conservative. And it's a cover story with a cover that reads Sycophant Savior. So why does Andrew J. Bacevich hate the troops?