For months Republicans have been taunting Senator Barack Obama for not visiting Iraq. From press releases to countdown clocks, it's been a key theme and it's put Obama on the defensive. The GOP has also been hitting him hard for not supporting the McCain surge that has proved fruitful, though not originally popular.

So what does Obama do? He goes to Afghanistan. Then Iraq. He meets with leaders in these countries and talks with soldiers. His aides have scripted him carefully, positioned him wisely and kept him away from any goofy looking hats to prevent another Dukakis-tank photo gaffe.

In an interesting turn of events, German magazine Der Spiegel Saturday quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as giving apparent backing to the withdrawal plans discussed by Obama who has pledged to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if he is elected. Though Ali al-Dabbagh, the chief spokesman for al-Maliki, said in a statement Sunday that the prime minister's comments were "not conveyed accurately," Der Spiegel is sticking to its story.

Al-Maliki has now given enormous cover to Obama and allowed him to pivot around McCain. The one issue Obama should be on the defensive about has effectively put McCain in a corner. There's no question that Obama has altered his position on Iraq troop withdrawal. What was once a rigid promise to pull troops out is well, still a rigid plan for to pull troops out--with a new timetable. There's also no question Barry doubted the surge would decrease violence. He believed it would do the converse. But that conversation is now stale.

Part of the problem is the McCain team's insistence on playing "gotcha" on the success of the surge. McCain's message has remained unchanged: "the surge has worked, the surge has worked." It has worked. But, the next question -- the more important question -- is: "Now that we are winning, are we done here yet?" Americans have a tradition of de-mobilizing too fast from costly wars (post-WW2, we created problems in Berlin, Korea and elsewhere because we simply got rid of the Army so fast). Democracies tire of long wars. Obama will be on the side of American sentiment by saying we need to get out faster. Now that our friends in Baghdad agree with him on the withdrawal plan, he no longer looks like he is completely out of touch with the situation on the ground.

Obama could even go as far as to acknowledge the surge has worked, and that he made a mistake and it would likely do no harm except for another minor exacerbation from the far left (though it's highly unlikely he'd admit wrongdoing. He, after all, "never doubts himself"). Obama can be vague about whether he is sticking to the 16 months, he just needs to make it clear that he will go faster than McCain.

The McCain camp dared Obama to come to Iraq. So he did. And while Obama is discussing the best way to bring the troops home, McCain is whining about the New York Times not publishing his most recent oped on Iraq. Obama: "Let's bring the troops home safely." McCain: "Waaaaahhhhh!" Chess verses checkers. Which do you think Americans care more about?

Instead McCain should seize the opportunity to highlight that Obama has seen the advantages to his proposals for Iraq, which means security for the region that will allow the US to focus on security threats elsewhere, like Afghanistan. This shows that there is hope for bipartisan solutions. McCain's message should be: "Now it's time for Senator Obama to change his position and follow me on energy policy and drilling."

If Obama can make it through this overseas trip without a stumble, controversy or policy goof, he is poised to remove McCain's biggest criticism by turning the tables while McCain appears vulnerable on his biggest strength.

Not exactly a checkmate, but a sign that McCain needs to step up his game.

 

The success we're seeing today in Iraq is great news for the country and the world, but bad news for Democrats. What does that tell you? There is no question the Bush Administration has made grave errors and estimations. But the surge is working, thanks to McCain, who bucked the White House and pushed for a new strategy of increased troop levels. What did Obama say about the surge? Let's rewind:

"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," the Illinois senator said that night, a month before announcing his presidential bid. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse," Obama urged.

Obama continued to argue throughout 2007 that the troop increase was a mistake.

Now he's in a pickle. His base wants him to continue his pledge to yank troops out ASAP. But things are going well in Iraq, and he's making a mad dash to the middle so he's changed his position on withdrawl, infuriating the left. To stop the bleeding he penned an editorial for the New York Times on Monday titled: "My Plan for Iraq."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

How very foolish to state a plan considering he hasn't been to Iraq in over 900 days. It's as responsible as a doctor recommending surgery to a patient they have never seen.

Will he change his position again once he returns from Iraq and pen another editoral? Perhaps more appropriately named, "What I Learned in Iraq?" In fact, WHAT is his position? Nobody can articulate it. No campaign staff, surrogates or even the great orator himself.

But an Obama supporter took at stab at it on MSNBC today during a debate segment opposite yours truly. He argued that Obama doesn't need to visit Iraq to get an idea of what is going on, mainly because he'll be surrounded by troops the entire time who are naive. Yes, you read it correctly. Naive.

See for yourself:

RICHARD GOODSTEIN: well, look, there are plenty of advisors on sensible policy in iraq who aren't included among our military leaders in iraq, with all due respect to general petraeus. there are plenty of people who have been on the ground, who are moving through there, who are either in the military, former military, or knowledgeable in the area that can give him plenty of advice. so the notion that somehow the only, you know, sort of basis you have for giving advice is to be there?

GOODSTEIN: i don't really think that's kind of a widespread view.

BRZEZINSKI: yeah, and i mean, you could also argue john mccain when he went to iraq was under such heavy security, how could he get a realistic view of what's on the ground.

GOODSTEIN: actually, i think andrea must be receiving the obama talking points by mistake.

TANTAROS: I doubt that, richard.

TANTAROS: and obama had seven on iraq and he hasn't been over there in 900 days. it was very foolish for him to write the editorial and put it in ""the new york times"" for his plan for iraq when he hasn't been there. you have to admit.

GOODSTEIN: honestly, i don't think the litmus test for whether somebody can have an informed view is to have sort of basically have your feet on the ground. as mika said herself, i sort of made the point when john mccain was there, we saw, he was surrounded by troops. when -- they had to clear out that market for him and lindsey graham to walk through.

TANTAROS: and he knows what's going on, wouldn't you agree? the troops know what's going on.

GOODSTEIN: WELL, NO, BECAUSE THE TROOPS HAVE A VERY NAIVE VIEW OF WHAT'S GOING ON. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS TO LOOK AT THE PUBLIC, THE U.S. INTERESTS.

OH, riiight. The troops don't know what's happening, Senators on Capitol Hill do. They're so in touch. Specifically one in particular who is running for President, who hasn't been there in years. Why visit Iraq when you can read the New York Times?! (This is the same logic as questioning why travel when you subscribe to Bon Voyage magazine?)

What's more nauseating is when liberals insult and seek to discredit the troops to promote their puzzling arguments. These are the same troops serving in the US military who are risking their lives so that we can broadcast our opinions (no matter how perverse) from MSNBC on live TV without bombs being lobbed at the building. The men and women of our brave military who are talking to Iraqis on the ground, helping to make their neighborhoods safer in over 100 degree heat. The same men and women who are on their second or third tour of duty, many who have been in Iraq from day one, fighting terrorism for years so that we can reap the progress we are seeing today.

To say that our troops on the ground have a naive view is flagrantly disrespectful. The only time the word naive should be used is when it's describing Senator Obama's approach to foreign affairs, national security and terrorism.

Liberals will never learn. They continue to ignore the progress, fail to credit our troops and sling insults and arrogance to paint a picture of doom and gloom because that will better suit their party at the polls. Victory against Republicans trumps victory against terrorism. An interesting campaign strategy, indeed.