I disagree.  If the mission is changed (to withdrawal) then we are simply talking logistics.  Why would you think that McCain has any more experience with that than Obama?  Being a Navy pilot certainly doesn't give you that experience, nor sitting on the Armed Services Committee (we've not done a phased withdrawal from a war zone during McCain's tenure).  

Intellectually, McCain is not Obama's equal.  And his real desire to remain in Iraq for 40 Days and 40 Nights (i.e., a long time), makes me wonder if he would set conditions so low as to insure that the occupation continued indefinitely.  My guess is that he'd be unwilling to outline the conditions which would trigger slowing down the withdrawal because, again, he's not committed to the idea.

In short,  I don't think this is an advantage for McCain.  I think, coupled with his movement on Afghanistan and the recent diplomatic push with Iran, McCain's supposed experience on foreign policy just went up in smoke.  What's he going to talk about? The economy?  I'll check back in a few days to see if he gains any traction with this smoke and mirrors budget (though I'm obviously a sceptic).

Can't agree. I think the fact that al-Maliki so readily alligned himself with Obama's supposedly naive approach is a blow from which McCain is unlikely to recover unless events totally undermine al-Maliki, which I consider unlikely. I think for the relatively unengaged, section of the electorate,  who are still developing an opinion of Obama, the last 48 hours have been very useful to the thin man from Illinois. It doesn't hurt that he drained a three on his first shot in Kuwait either. Watch the poll numbers in Indiana and N. Carolina on court savvy alone.

Amazing: an indepdendent-minded creative post on the tnr.com blogs. Yes, this could and should benefit McCain, theman who-- courageously, independently, at great cost-- argued for the surge that alone makes withdrawal a realistic and responsible outcome. As many have pointed out, a withdrawal will take years, not months, and is far more complicated and risky than young Obama and his advisers imagine.

Sorry, tep, but no.  What this shows is that, with the *possible* exception of the surge, McCain has been wrong, and Obama right, indeed prescient, on every single major development of the war and our policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, in front of both McCain and the Bush Administration.  McCain must now either back down from his neocon vision of long-term bases in Iran (thus flip-flopping) or agree to some such withdrawal (thus flip-flopping), or both (thus somersaulting), whereas Obama needs to do a sideways pivot at most.

Also, if the effect is to begin an end game in Iraq, then the economy comes into play even more.  That cannot benefit the incumbent party, even if it's John McCain.

I couldn't disagree with you more.  There's no disputing this is a huge boon for Obama in the short term, right?  You're just saying that, in the long term, McCain will have the upper hand on the logistics of getting us out, assuming he completely reverses his stance (not just from the last 5 years but his campaign's statements since Maliki started pushing for withdrawal a couple of weeks ago).

Putting aside the big assumption that McCain will even agree to the idea of getting out of Iraq in the near-term (rather than 40 years down the road), no voter is going to decide who to vote for based on the logistics of getting out of Iraq.  If both candidates agree to get us out, then the only thing voters will take away from the Iraq issue is that Obama took the lead and McCain and Bush followed (albeit dragging their feet).  The economy and other domestic issues will dominate Iraq as a salient issue.  McCain's entire campaign is about him being right on the surge, right on Iraq, right on refusing to withdraw before "victory."  He'll have to completely revamp, and they're already desperately trying to spin this (Maliki just sayings things for political gain...Maliki = Obama??).  This is really devastating for the McCain campaign.  And if the media picks up on that story of Maliki only releasing a statement after he was pressured to do so by the White House...it could really blow up.

The only thing that could mitigate the effect of this is if Maliki meets with Obama on his trip to Iraq and comes out and publicly says he doesn't support a timeline for withdrawal.  But even then, it may very well come across as a result of pressure from the Bush administration, which will completely discredit any backtracking Maliki does.

Oh, and teplukhin2you, in the midst of disparaging the very website you're reading, you showed your ignorance of the issue.  You wrote:

"As many have pointed out, a withdrawal will take years, not months, and is far more complicated and risky than young Obama and his advisers imagine."

As a matter of fact, Obama's plan is to get them out in a year and a half.

We all need to stop giving McCain credit (I'm lookin at you, Tep!) for the tactical success of the surge. It was not a courageous stand, it was an impulsively selected position, and he's lucky that Petraeus made it work out.

McCain never articulated a clear alternative STRATEGY, or even knew anything about Gen. Petraeus' counter-insurgency strategy. Troop levels alone were not the answer, neither in 2003 nor in 2007. A fundamental change in strategy was required.

If anyone deserves credit it's Petraeus. Not Bush, not McCain, since I'm still not convinced they have any idea what they're doing.

McCain's logic was: Iraq = Vietnam, we lost Vietnam because of weak-kneed cut-and-run sissies, ergo: "We Need More Troops. What we'll do with them, exactly, um, uh, well you know, they'll, uh, FIGHT!"

Bush's logic was much simpler: "Democrats want me to do what?? Sh*t, I'll INCREASE troop levels. Hah! That'll show 'em."

Also, about Crowley's original point... Nice try, but no way. Any improvement in Iraq that lets us focus even more on our economic woes is a plus for Obama. At this point in the war, the opportunity is past for retroactive justification of either the invasion or the cleanup.

At any rate, this allows Obama to blur further the foreign policy distinctions between him and McCain, which was really the only thing McCain had going for him. It's still early, but Maliki's endorsement of Obama's withdrawal plan plus the fawning media coverage from the Europe trip, may create a wave of momentum for Obama that could carry through the convention.

The problem with this logic is that Bush and McCain still don't want to admit that they will need to withdraw. To the extent to which they acknowledge this, they'll be perceived as changing to adopt Obama's position.

I'm fairly sure that it has occurred to some of us that the Iraq situation was/is going to be resolved in a manner without regard to the candidate or party involved. This was true a year ago and it will be true next year. The stakes are that high. What I find distasteful and insulting is that there are those who seem to need to characterize the Iraq situation as an abject failure and debacle regardless of reality on the ground. This was and has always been a Catch 22 situation. To spite a possible positive outcome for the sake of temporal political expediency is unforgivable and very, very small.

As I've said before, I am of a mind wherein the two headed beast of American political discourse has aided the situation in Iraq. For both their domestic situation and our own needs. No time table offers the kind of principle commitment and space for assurance. Time table does focus and motivate the actualities toward establishing in reality the goal.

If at this point any prospective POTUS were to express by virtue of voice or implied action/inaction a cynicism at the democratic reforms taking place in Iraq dare I say is not fit to be President.

Obama must needs be very careful in this matter. He pays good lip service to principle beyond expedience. My hope is that he continues to do so.

So many here think that it's not likely that McCain could benefit once the matter turns to implementing withdrawal. Another instance comes to mind of a wretched catastrophic war-party implementing a withdrawal from mayhem it created/aggravated/prolonged, running against someone who had opposed the war from the start and wanted fast withdrawal. Here is a quote from that time(1972)of the war-opposer's campaign brochure, " Senator McGovern has opposed our military intervention in Vietnam since 1963. He has pledged he will withdraw all our military forces and aid ....... in his first 90 days as President." As I recall that election didn't turn out so good for the party of the guy-who-always opposed-the-war-and-wanted-fast-withdrawal vs. the party of prolonged apocolyptic withdrawal. He lost 49 states.

McCain and Bush have a vision of an undefinite long term force presence in Iraq. Like Germany or Korea, there would be bases, exersizes, etc. Unlike those countries, our forces would have arrest powers and be in active combat (against AQ) for the long term. That's what's disingenuous about McCain's clarification of 100years, that he means when there aren't any casualties. But in fact, in combat there are always casualties, even when not in active combat like Beruit or Saudi. So in fact, it is NOT like Germany or Korea, and never will be (at least in the foreseeable future) and they know this. Perhaps for honorable reasons, they believe that a strong troop presence 'takes the fight to AQ" over there, instead of over here, etc. But it ignores the 'externalities' of this policy, namely the hatred of the Iraqi people for an active foreign military presence on it's territory.  This is what Obama has right and McCain has wrong. Obama has even said that perhaps a residual force will be in place to manage 'fire fighting', but I suspect the larger part of American troop presence will be 'advisors' and the like. And this is better anyway. We don't want a stand up war with AQ, we can't win that, we want a proxy war. Enemy of my enemy stuff. This is what Obama's vision is, and save our own forces for the definite, actionable, high value attacks which in general won't engender hatred to the US. Patreus understood this when he started bribing Sunni's to fight AQ. We are much better when we do that.

McCain is already jumping on the 'translation error' or 'local politics' angle; he wants to sustain a large presence in Iraq, with or without Iraqi support. This is very dangerous, and will lead to 1) more alienation among Iraqis (with a loss of hearts and minds), and 2) huge military expnses which we can no longer afford. Not to mention that we are better off fighting them in Afghanistan, you know, where they actually are...

Fundamentally, if McCain tries to jump on the withdrawal bandwagon, Obama has a great line: "Look, even McCain and Bush now reallize I had the right policy all along. "

@lesserliz, true. But we also have that war somewhat fresh in our consciousness. It was an unmitigated loss. And yes, some voters are too young (altho the generally favor Obama) but they have seen many soul searching movies about that war. And there was ALWAYS a lesson...Platoon, We Were Soldiers, etc.

Here's the key exchange from McCain's interview this morning on NBC's "Today":

To Michael Crowley: but doesn't this minimize the importance of Iraq as a voting issue? If things are going so well over there that both Bush and Maliki are conceding that it's time to start getting out, then why is Iraq a big deal anymore? I think economic issues will now be even more important than they have been, which means McCain offers even less as a president. Really, what else does he offer? "Strict Constructionist" judges? I just don't think that's an issue that's at the forefront of most people's minds right now.  Lower taxes? Who serioulsy believes that's a good idea these days other than corporate executives and Grover Norquist? Especially when everyone knows that McCain's only offering that as a political move to appeal to his base, not because he really believes it. He's white? That will bring in some votes, I suppose.

thetraytiger, good posts. The whole freakin point of the surge was to allow the Iraqis breathing room to their act together enough for us to leave. If the surge worked then we should begin the process of leaving. I find it extraordinary that McCain could blow this great opportunity to take advantage of the perception of the success of the surge, so what if the end result is the same as what Obama is saying? In fact, this is what McCain should have been saying all along.

This should have been a slam dunk for McCain all along. Instead of saying "see the surge worked, I was right and we can now thing about leaving" we have "the surge worked, long live the surge, let us stay there indefinitely"

thetraytiger has it right about two important points: the implementation of the "surge" and the absence of a strategic vision in McCain's position.

As to the second point, Obama's strategic visioin is simple: this is not a war the United States should be in and US soldiers should not be dying to protect the Chalabi clan's kleptocracy.  You keep troops to protect immediate US interests, but then you leave it to the country to sort itself out.

McCain?  Talks about winning, but winning what exactly?  The low level terrorist activity in Iraq will go on for years, thanks to the initial ineptitude of the invasion.  *That* part of the war is unwinnable, until such time as the Iraqis themselves decide they have had enough killing.  Aside from that, when electricity generation is still at pre-War levels, when most of Iraq still does not have safe drinking water, when most Iraqis are still unemployed, when there are tens of thousands fleeing to neighbouring countries - what exactly is the US winning?  Certainly not hearts and minds.

As for McCain's courageous stance: sorry Tep, he should not be allowed to get away with that.  True courage would have been to require the Pentagon to come up with a plan, in 2002, that would make the surge unnecessary five years later.  Remember: it was US military incompetence that led to the need to the surge in the first place.  Anyone who supported the war and said nothing about its management has no right whatever to seek the benefit of any future successes that barely correct the initial frack-up.

And one more thing, Tep: I'm glad you no longer use Wonder Boy or Obama Christ or the Chosen One or whatever to refer to Obama.  But "Young" Obama?  I know you did not like Edwards, but did you refer to him as "Young Edwards"?  Or "Young Gore" in 1988?  And you do not refer to "codger" or "senile" or "needs-Viagra" McCain ... I'm only five years younger than Obama and, frankly, can do a far better job of the US Presidency than the current baboon occupying it.  Age has nothing to do with anything.  

Maliki's "endorsement" is a "huge, huge deal."

I think Crowley is on to something, but not something as rational as "who can manage withdrawl logistics better".  Unfortunately, I know quite a few people who agree with the vast majority of Obama's policy positions but have a gut-level discomfort with Obama.  They'll never own up to it, but it's all about race, culture, and youth...America turning into something they're not sure they recognize.  But they are conflicted about voting for McCain because, well, they disagree with everything he stands for, but at least they feel like they know what they're getting.  (You got some of this with Bush in 2004 as well.)  If these voters don't have to worry about getting 100 years of war, it gives them another way to rationalize voting for the white guy.

I'm not sure the 100 years thing was unfair to McCain.  I thought so at first, but later on, as McCain repeatedly explained himself, he turned it into a fair allegation.  McCain's explanations were so incoherent they actually sustained the original charge against him.

McCain says we can stay 100 years as long as nobody is shooting at us - Iraq can be just like Germany, Japan and Korea.  But he simply assumes away the shooting - there's no attempt to reconcile Iraq as it is to the sort of Iraq he thinks we can occupy without violence.  And he doesn't say he would leave if that sort of Iraq doesn't emerge in, say, 50 years...

If he ever really meant what he said - and I have never heard him take it back - then the original charge is fair.  He would stay for 100 years, and hope nobody gets killed.  

Neil

Actually, its not really a matter of can the Republicans turn this around in their favor, the reality is that they will do what they've always done when the facts don't suit them: make up their own story, rationalize it, claim they win the political points and drop the topic.

It is sad, but the GOP has mastered the art of avoiding inconvenient truths. This could very well lead to a McCain victory in the fall if he can find a way to merge the tasks of defining and declaring victory.

lesserliz andGSpinks make good points. Overconfidence at this point is understandable but unwarranted.

boxo's point is key--at the end of the day, it's Iraqis, not American politicians, who are going to decide how this goes, and if under the circumstances the Iraqi government pushes to really eliminate US influence rather than just shuffle around and tap-dance with the definitions of "combat troops", "end the war", etc. I will eat my hat.

Until we have a viable alternative to Persian Gulf petroleum in order to have a world economy, which to me looks about fifty years out, we will have a vital interest in what happens in Iraq. These interests are not going to be protected by exclusive reliance on satellites and cruise missiles, much less on UN Resolutions. We will change our approach, probably several times, but anyone who thinks we are just going to flip a switch and "get out of Iraq" is living in a fool's paradise.

"Until we have a viable alternative to Persian Gulf petroleum in order to have a world economy, which to me looks about fifty years out, we will have a vital interest in what happens in Iraq. "

It wouldn't take that long if we can convince Republicans to mandate Big Oil to actually start drilling the land they've leased from the Government as well as stop selling domestically produced oil on the open market. Sadly, bill HR 1350 got trounced by a largely party-line vote in the House last week.

With all due respect G, this is a bi-partisan problem. Republicans, nor anyone else outside a fascist police state, can "mandate Big Oil" to do do much of anything effective in this regard. I think HR 1350 was a stunt.

Anyway, the domestic drilling "mandate" would only push us further towards the half-century timeline for  practical alternatives to petro, than we need to go. I'd rather have the government incentivize a new electrical grid.

The bridge petro is in the Persian Gulf.

Even my own colleagues mocked me for suggesting that Iraqi prime minister Maliki's confusing-but