Now, the top U.S. commander in Iraq has started to do something interesting for a general charged with delivering an extraordinarily important update on the war: He has begun to give interviews in which he appears to be leaking some of his findings and recommendations.

A few days ago, Petraeus said there has been a substantial reduction of violence since the U.S. troop surge began. On Wednesday, in an interview with ABC, he said troop reductions will have to begin no later than March, adding, "The surge will run its course. There are limits to what our military can provide, so my recommendations have to be informed by, not driven by, ... the strain we have put on our military services."

In part, this is an indication to his fellow Army generals that he is accepting the Army view that the surge cannot be maintained into the spring. The Army has been adamant that deployments cannot be extended more than 15 months, insisting they must be reduced. If Petraeus were to recommend maintaining the surge, he would have to recommend maintaining the 15-month deployments, or even extending them. If he did that, he would be flying in the face of the Army's point of view -- which he is not about do.

So, we have heard two important bits of information. The first is that the general is going to argue that the surge has reduced violence -- a view at odds with the recent National Intelligence Estimate and Government Accountability Office report. The second is that the surge must end by spring. The interesting question is not what he is saying -- since both of those statements will have to be evaluated in the context of his entire report -- but, rather, why he is saying it. Why is an Army general who has been tasked with providing a decisive report to two branches of the government telegraphing the details of what he will say?

Obviously, it is a political report, but Petraeus is not a politician. His authority rests on being perceived as utterly apolitical, a military technician measuring reality against the benchmarks he has been given. He is also in a tough spot; as a general, he is in the chain of command and he reports to the president, his commander-in-chief. Whatever agreement Bush has with congressional leaders, Petraeus takes his orders from the White House.

When we look at what he has said so far, Petraeus appears to be tracking Bush's position. Bush has said that violence is down, and so has Petraeus. Bush has indicated the time is coming to reduce troops, and so has Petraeus. In effect, the general's interviews have buttressed the president's position. That makes his interviews even stranger. If his findings indicate violence is down and that troop levels should remain constant for another six months or so before being reduced, presenting this perspective formally and without hints would seem to strengthen his position. If he is seen as simply supporting Bush's stance, his credibility will obviously be weakened.

Now, it may well be that Petraeus' findings are precisely this and he has an entirely defensible position that just happens to track the president's. The problem with his early selective revelations in these interviews is that he seems to be positioning himself politically, and in the process preparing the case for supporting the president. Revealing his findings on ABC gives his critics time to get their knives out and undermines the sense of his complete impartiality and indifference to the political process, placing him squarely in the thick of it.

Petraeus is an Army general, and they are notoriously insensitive to political nuance. But he also is said to be brilliant in counterinsurgency, which is political warfare, so we assume he understands the politics of Washington. It might be that when the final report is issued, these statements will simply be logical conclusions drawn from a persuasive mass of information. It might be that he is neutral between Congress and Bush and is simply issuing a report, letting the chips fall where they may.

But if he goes to Congress with a report that tracks Bush's position, he will be attacked. If he does so after conducting a media campaign announcing it, his vulnerability will be substantially increased. Therefore, the general must have something in mind with these public comments -- we just can't figure out what. If there was ever a time for David Petraeus to shy away from the media, it is now. Yet, he is a smart man and he is giving interviews. It will be interesting to find out why.