Having been leaked out slowly in the days leading up, there were no surprises. Petraeus makes his case for tactical progress, and surge critics argue the disconnect with strategic goals (the government in Iraq is not jelling and the slo-mo partitioning proceeds--albeit with fewer deaths). Making the case for the status quo on troops until next spring, promising a drop down to pre-surge levels only a year from now, is going to be a very hard sell to make. Most of the rejection will come from a public that sees a return to war-plus levels of casualties, but with little sense of payoff or positive movement. Like the addict who consumes the drug with no hope of a high but merely the absence of an unbearable low, we seem to be running faster just to stay in place. Still, since the public trusts the military far more than either Congress or the White House regarding a fitting glidepath toward lower troop levels, Petraeus may just have sold enough well enough to buy some significant leeway on his request. But if so, I will also tell you this: the public won't stand for a serious ramping up toward a major military intervention into Iran on the side. If Petraeus wins most of what he wants (say, he gives up some token reductions before the end of the year but most of the surge is preserved through next spring, as we engage in all the troop rotational lengthening schemes we can muster), then we'll be definitely locked into a long, slow drawdown starting next spring that will effectively rule out any other major intervention by Bush save for the pointless lobbing of missiles and bombs from above. If so, and the latest intell estimates are correct in saying that Iran's within a couple years of achieving its bomb, then this is a done deal that's been left to the next president, most likely along with Kim. See what happens when you telegraph your punches with that "axis of evil" bit? You end up only landing one.