My first act as General Petraeus would be to snip the strings off my arms and use my own words to describe the situation in Iraq, rather than just paraphrasing President Bush’s soft language.

General David Petraeus, the commander of American forces in Iraq, testified before the Senate on Sept. 11 and 12 (yes, that would be 9/11, or “Patriot Day” as it has been dubbed of late…but that’s another article). His testimony was highly anticipated and many American citizens were eager to hear what the surge had accomplished thus far. What we got was slightly different.

Petraeus described those pesky Muslim extremists whom troops face daily, usually in the form of deadly car bombs that leave hundreds dead, as “irreconcilables,” a term that calls to mind the lowest rung of the Hindu caste system: the “untouchables.”

On CBS Eye to Eye, Petraeus even went as far as to call the situation in Iraq “a full-contact sport” that is “played to the hilt.” You know, like touch football, only with guerilla warfare. Or could it be more like soccer with suicide bombers? Even at its roughest, I highly doubt basketball with tear gas would be an apt comparison to the situation in Iraq.

If I were to trade places with Petraeus, I can only hope my wits would be secure enough to realize that patronizing the American people with soft language and bad metaphors at this stage of the game would be a no-no. Petraeus went on to call the situation “in no way good,” which seemed designed to fuel the public’s view of him as a no-nonsense straight-talker. But it would seem ridiculous at this point for Petraeus to say otherwise--especially when USA Today reports that, of those polled, 60 percent of US citizens think troops should be withdrawn right away.

Amid this fervor, what else would he be expected to say?         

Dr. Richard Kohn, a military historian from the University of North Carolina, told Newsweek that he thinks Petraeus is “[asking] Congress for an indefinite time frame.” It would logically follow, then, that the hubbub leading up to and following Petraeus’ testimony is merely a time-wasting device designed to make the few die-hard Republicans Bush still has in his corner feel somewhat secure in backing him for now.

Who’s to say that David Petraeus isn’t really a no-nonsense, straight-talking, honest kind of fella? And if he is, hey, more power to the man. But he is most likely working with and for people who are less-than-honest types, and it might be a good idea to make sure he isn’t being used before opening his trap. Either way, he certainly didn’t claim any extensive knowledge about troops in Iraq making America a safer nation, an idea President Bush has been desperate to drive home. It’s a nice sentiment, but when Petraeus said “I don’t know” in response to the question of American safety, well, I didn’t feel especially “safe.” I don’t think the senator who posed the question was comforted overly much, either.

Of course, David Petraeus has a boss, just like you and I have bosses. The difference is, Petraeus has a boss who, according to reports from the Huffington Post, thinks he is an ingratiating sycophant—to paraphrase slightly. Admiral William Fallon reportedly called Petraeus an “a**-kissing little chickens***,” saying that he “hate[s] people like that.” America, this is obviously a man who does not sugarcoat his feelings or opinions. Maybe this is a very cynical viewpoint, but I personally doubt Petraeus is the long-awaited “straight shooter” our country has been searching for (no pun intended). Admiral Fallon, on the other hand, seems ready to fill those shoes. Well, let’s face it: I’m sure part of my enthusiasm stems from a somewhat morbid desire to see what he calls the rest of the people who work for him. But you get my point.

I’ll go ahead and agree with Dr. Kohn on this one: Petraeus’ testimony was “too little, too late.” Now that I’ve gotten this out of the way, if you’ll excuse me, I have a game of hockey to referee.

With pipe bombs, of course.