The Petraeus testimony should not be viewed in the vacuum of conventional warfare.

I believe General Petraeus is as honorable a man as we have ever had in our armed forces. He has the physical courage to spend his days and nights on our battlefields and he has the morale courage to tell us how he sees it. He has the best interests of his country and his soldiers at heart. We could ask for nothing more from him. He is a conventional general and attended all the conventional schools. His plans and actions are quite appropriate when viewed from that perspective. His personal standards are above reproach.

During his testimony, General Petraeus made some handsome comments about Special Forces. He said that in some locales the only outside force assisting local security and leadership is a Special Forces Team. He further commented that the SF Teams are doing excellent work and local leadership is very fond of having them on site. I suggest that careful and prompt consideration be given to expanding that Special Forces role. With 55 years of operational experience and training in the indirect warfare effort most needed in Iraq today, US Army Special Forces are uniquely qualified for this mission. Concurrently our Special Forces (Green Berets) offer a force multiplier effect, using indigenous personnel, that no other Army branch and no other armed service provides.

Now a few comments about the outrageous performance of some other characters.

MoveOn.org ran a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us?

That is without a doubt the most despicable and unpatriotic act I've witnessed. It is an insult to every officer, every man, and every women serving in our armed forces today and I have no doubt it was so taken. We need to ask ourselves why our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen would want to continue to serve and protect us while those we chose to represent us treat them so shabbily. And we need to consider the ramifications of having a leaderless army when we next visit the voting polls.

As a Vietnam vet I am always curious about the comparisons. The key difference I see between the 1960s and today is the lack of public support for the losing propositions. For all the ranting by a small number of our politicians and full page ads by PACs, they stir up no significant demonstrations and precious little else. A former SEAL CDR, Larry Bailey and his patriotic Gathering of Eagles members now outnumber Cindy Sheehan's followers at many of her lightly attended events, and those are being scheduled further and further apart.

Cindy's sacrifice is not to be discounted and were it possible, I would gratefully thank her son for his service. I do recognize that in comparison to the 60s, Cindy herself never made it to the big time and I see no other rising star activist or organization able to galvanize the country to take an anti-war or anti-military stance. Today those positions belong to a small group that seems to be getting smaller and weaker.

If there is a lesson in this week's events, it may be don't mess with the troops. Unlike the generation that produced many of America's current civilian leaders, this generation of Americans does not want anyone messing with their men and women in uniform. Or perhaps the lesson is that most Americans feel the threat today, and they no longer consider doing nothing about national defense to be a viable option.

Mike Linnane