"It is incremental," Petraeus continued. "It is this exercise of pushing the stone up the hill, a Sisyphean endeavor at times where you do make two steps up and one step back. Sometimes you make one step up and two steps back ... (but over) the last year or so ... from the large, comprehensive offensive launched in June 2007 when we had all of the surge brigades on the ground ... since that time there has been a fairly steady degree of improvement."
I asked about another "strategic condition," one I believe central to any version of victory: Iraq emerging as a U.S. ally.
"That is certainly one of the objectives," Petraeus said. The United States would want an Iraq "taking resolute action against" al-Qaida in Iraq, Shia militias and "special groups" supported by Iran.
I asked, bluntly: "Do you have an idea of what victory would be in Iraq or the Global War on Terror?"
Petraeus said the campaign plan had "near-term objectives for summer 2008" and the security objectives have been met. If the Iraqi government passes "the provincial elections law, then it can be declared that they have met them (plan objectives) in the political line of operation ... ." Diplomatic and economic objectives are also being achieved.
"We have objectives for 2009 and an end state, as well," he said. He did not elaborate on goals for 2009 but said the end state in shorthand "is a country that is at peace with itself and its neighbors; a government representative of and responsive to its people; a productive member of the region and the global economy."
"But again," he warned, "we have considerable drill-downs that describe the objectives relative to the security line of operations, relative to the enemy ... relative to the Iraqi forces, the different types that are here."
I translate from the mil-speak: The smart and resilient enemy "always has a vote," and in Iraq's case what Iran does or does not do matters. "Rheostat victory" requires a United States willing to act with all "the tools of power" to back its new ally, Iraq.