In a rare move for a uniformed officer, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, considered a shoo-in to become America’s next top commander in Iraq, jumped into the political fray of his nomination hearing.

Prompted by presidential hopeful and Armed Services Committee ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Petraeus spoke out against congressional attempts to pass resolutions of disapproval on the new White House strategy in Iraq, which includes a troop increase of 21,500.

In response to a question from McCain regarding the effect of such congressional resolutions on troops, Petraeus said, “It would not be a beneficial effect, sir.”

McCain supports sending additional U.S. troops to Iraq, and is at odds with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), another presidential hopeful and member of the Armed Services panel. 

When Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a strong supporter of the Bush administration’s strategy for Iraq, later asked Petraeus whether the resolutions of disapproval would encourage the enemies in Iraq, the officer said: “That’s correct.”

“This is a test of will,” he said, adding that as commander he would like “the enemy to feel that there is no hope.” He stressed, however, that he respects freedom of speech and the discussions taking place in Congress.

Lieberman used the nomination hearing to ask his colleagues to defer the resolutions of disapproval and give both the “surge” plan and Petraeus a chance at success, “perhaps a last chance.”

“If, God forbid, you are unable to succeed there will be plenty of time for resolutions of disapproval,” Lieberman said.

Clinton, however, rebuked criticism of congressional attempts to condemn the president’s Iraq plan. Clinton is authoring legislation that would require Bush to secure congressional consent for any troop increases above this month’s level and set several other conditions for political and security progress before Iraqi troops receive further funding.

“I very sincerely but wholeheartedly disagree with those who are trying to up the rhetoric about our position in Iraq,” Clinton said, adding that the resolutions’ goal is to send a message to the Iraqis.

“It has nothing to do with the loyalty, the warrior skills and the leadership of our men and women,” she said. “It has to do with years of lost opportunity and the failures of the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility.”

She told reporters that the U.S. troops, by virtue of their access to the Internet, recognize “that there is a debate in this country.” “This debate is academic,” she added.

Clinton acknowledged that there is little Congress can do to stop an “escalation” already in progress, saying, “We know that this policy is going forward.” She urged Petraeus to ask Congress for all resources necessary to provide the troops with the adequate equipment.

Clinton, who is giving her support to Petraeus, called the nominee “a very good soldier.”

Petraeus’s stance against the resolutions of disapproval, combined with Lieberman’s rhetoric, sent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a co-sponsor of such a resolution, on the defensive. “The American people are not divided in their support for our troops. The American people are not divided in wishing you all the success in the world, despite our disagreement with the strategy,” Collins said.

“And I must say that the resolution that I’ve been working on with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. [John] Warner (R-Va.) is very clear in expressing support for our troops,” she added.

Warner also came to the defense of the congressional debate surrounding the surge plan. “We’re trying to exercise the fundamental responsibilities of our democracy and how this nation has two co-equal branches of the government, each bearing its own responsibilities,” he said.

“I hope that this colloquy has not entrapped you into some responses that you might later regret.”

Petraeus predicted “tough days” ahead in Iraq. “None of this will be rapid,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy.” However, he voiced confidence in the administration’s plan to send thousands of additional troops into Baghdad. He said he would not be able to carry out his assignment as top U.S. commander successfully without the additional troops.

But Petraeus encountered criticism from members of the panel for his planned implementation of a policy contrary to views he expressed in a manual he wrote on counterinsurgency. He wrote there that any counterinsurgency force should have at least 20 soldiers for every 1,000 members of the local population. That would require a force of at least 120,000 for Baghdad, a much higher number than the 85,000 combined U.S.-Iraqi force there

Clinton said she feared that Petraeus is being sent to administer a policy that “does not reflect your experience.”

“You wrote the book, general, but the policy is not by the book,” Clinton said.

Petraeus commanded the Army’s 101st Airborne Division during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was later assigned to stabilize Iraq’s third-largest city, Mosul.

He served for 15 months in 2004–05 as head of the U.S. effort to train Iraqi security forces. After that he was assigned to Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where he was in charge of revising the counterinsurgency manual.