One of the great joys of covering defense issues is that I am all but spared from the presidential campaign. No long rides on the campaign bus only to hear the candidate give the exact same speech five times in one day. No, I leave that to my fine colleagues, and quietly laugh from an austere military outpost somewhere in Iraq. There, I am hopefully seeing and learning from the troops on the ground, which I would always rather be doing.

But alas today, the campaign bus drove right through my beat. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain sent a fundraising letter that evoked Gen. David Petraeus’ name. In the letter, McCain chastises Obama for visiting Iraq only once. If Obama is willing to sit down with Iranian President (and top U.S. foe) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, why doesn’t Obama “take the opportunity to sit down with General Petraeus and learn about the situation in Iraq firsthand.” Agree? Send your check to the McCain campaign.

A political maelstrom quickly erupted. A coterie of Democrats leaders gathered in Wisconsin Friday morning to lambast McCain for “politicizing the military.” Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, an Obama backer, hurled a counter charge, saying McCain appeared at an event the previous day and said the U.S. had already drawdown troops to pre-surge levels. “Everybody knows it’s not true. I assume Sen. McCain doesn’t know the facts here.” Indeed, there are about 155,000 troops in Iraq; before the Bush administration’s “surge” strategy began last spring, there were 132,000 troops.

A few hours later, McCain dismissed that criticism but promised he would not use Gen. Petraeus’ name in fundraising material. 

The controversy comes at an interesting time because the military is grappling with the role of politics in the new kind of war it fights. Indeed, some charge that Gen. Petraeus has become too political. They say that the general became the face for the surge strategy because the administration lacked creditability with the public. That is, he was representative for the administration, not an objective military commander. He rejects that charge outright. In fact, I spoke briefly to Gen. Petraeus after he testified on Capitol Hill last month, and he said he tried very carefully to avoid the array of political landmines before him.

Before the Iraq War began, a soldier’s job was clear -- follow orders and give your best advice to civilian leaders. But as the military adopted counterinsurgency, which demands a soldier make split-second, on-the-ground adjustments to the situation in his community, that relationship has become complicated. A captain in charge of stabilizing a small Iraqi community can’t wait for a general to tell him how to settle a local dispute. It is up to him. And the general, in this case, Petraeus, must now think far more broadly – about regional politics and sometimes domestic pressures - not just about the best military plan.

Just last week, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, published a letter in the latest issue of Joint Force Quarterly about this issue. In it, he said that “the U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways.” Clearly, the issue is on the minds of top military leaders.

So is the military becoming more political? Or are politicians using military decisions for political gain? Unfortunately for me, I will have to keep checking in throughout the election to figure it out.  But frankly, I’d rather be out in the field with the soldiers that ultimately must carry out orders from politicians.