Retired Army Major General John Batiste – recently cashiered as an official CBS News expert after appearing in a partisan political commercial for “Vote Vets” bashing Bush for not listening to generals like him – was invited on to ABC’s “Good Morning America” this morning.

Substitute host George Stephanopoulos played the skeptic about the possibly heavy costs of a hasty pullout from Iraq, but General Batiste sounded almost like an official spokesman for Senate Democrats in hailing Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island: “I had the opportunity yesterday to read the Levin-Reed amendment in the Senate, two pages carefully crafted that makes incredible sense. That is, we need a better plan to get out than what we had to get in. We need to recognize that our all-volunteer military cannot sustain the current cycle of deployments. And this ought to really worry every American.”

The general has been willing to go just about anywhere on the left – including radical Pacifica Radio’s “Democracy Now” show – to pound his palm against President Bush. The exchange on ABC continued this way:

Stephanopoulos: “But the Levin-Reed amendment would call for withdrawal starting in about 120 days, hopefully have a redeployment out of Baghdad by next spring. It’s a partial withdrawal. Tom Friedman of the New York Times this morning calls the idea of a partial withdrawal a fantasy and he goes on to say this: ‘The minute we start to withdraw, all hell will break loose in areas we leave, and there will be a no-holds-barred contest for power among the Iraqi factions. Our staying there with, say, half as many troops will not be sustainable.’”

Batiste: “Well, you know, the truth is, George, we've never had sufficient troops in Iraq. And the current surge is an excellent example. If you added up all the combat troops in all of Iraq, there's not enough to secure the city of Baghdad alone.”

Stephanopoulos: “But how do you pull out without that disaster, sir?”

Batiste: “George, you need to start out and define what the United States national interests are in the Middle East. You then craft a comprehensive strategy for the Middle East, which includes the tough work, diplomatically, politically and economically, in addition to the military. The current administration is dependent almost entirely on the military to pull this off, all but ignoring diplomatic, political and economic hard work that is fundamental and important.”

Stephanopoulos: “True. But even if there was diplomacy, you would still have this problem on the ground in Iraq as you’re pulling these troops out. Put it on the ground right now. You're the general on the ground in Iraq. How exactly do you redeploy the forces without having this kind of a bloodbath?”

Batiste: “The first thing you need to do, George, is figure out what missions you want to sustain in Iraq, what supports our national interest. That might include protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and equipment that are there, supporting the country of Iraq diplomatically. That might include training and equipping the Iraqi security forces. That might include a capability to go after Islamic extremism in its many forms to include al Qaeda in Iraq. You need to figure out what the end state is and then you build to that.”

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center