um, it's not petraeus' job to determine whether u.s. forces withdraw from iraq. we have civilian control of the military in this country (which is a good thing). that means the president tells the military what the goal is and the military carries those goals out. the commander in chief sets the overall strategy. members of the military decide how best to carry it out.
right now we have a commander-in-chief who seems to have the strategy of staying in iraq at all costs. but down the road, we may have a commander-in-chief with a different strategic vision. it seems likely that the next president will have the a goal of withdrawing all combat forces from iraq (minus some vaguely defined "residual force"). if that happens the military's only role would be to tell the president what is the best (least costly, safest, most practical, etc.) way to achieve that goal. general petraeus, and all the other generals and members of the military don't get to decide if the goal of leaving is a good or bad idea, except to the extent that they have their single vote in the presidential race like everyone else.
i guess petraeus' remarks could be read as critical of the idea of an inflexible timetable, not withdrawal as a goal. but no one is actually proposing a rigid schedule. obama has long called for a "responsible and phased" withdrawal which will be "directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government." if petraeus is trying to react to the obama plan, really he's just reacting to the media caricature of the plan rather than the plan itself.
UPDATE: a few hours after this post went up, i realized i forgot to put the link to the article i was commenting on in the first paragraph. the link is there now. i'm sorry for any confusion.
