This Middle East/European tour of Barack Obama’s is getting very interesting, in that the “spin” hurtling in from both sides is enough to make one seasick. By some accounts, Senator Obama is nailing it, leaving an increasingly desperate-looking John McCain scrambling to reclaim some of the military-savvy thunder he once wielded as a trump card in this Presidential race. Prime Minister Maliki’s ostensible endorsement of Obama’s plan for withdrawal by late 2010 is surely a feather in the collective Obama cap to some degree, but it is not going unchallenged. Guess who popped up this morning on everyone’s favorite television program to claim the Maliki policy declaration as a victory for his political party? That’s right, folks: Rudy’s got relevance again, and he’s spinning like a toy top on McCain’s behalf!

And let’s not forget the greatest spin of all: the word “won” is starting to make insidious appearances in much of the public discourse about Iraq. Although the question was asked again and again, we as a people never really got a satisfactory answer as to what “victory” in Iraq would look like. No matter: it seems that some folks (mostly on the right) are coming ever closer to declaring it for us.  

Now, let’s look at some of the specific comments on both sides. Senator Obama has continued his insistence on malleable policy and considered, thoughtful response to changing conditions, even going so far as to acknowledge that there has been “ an enormous improvement” on the ground in Iraq. This is a potentially problematic statement politically, seeming as it does to acknowledge the success of the surge that Senator Obama once opposed. However, it is to the credit of his charisma and political acumen that his comment comes off as a level-headed re-assessment of changing conditions rather than a bow to the foresight of Senator McCain. Senator Obama’s trip is coming to reinforce some of the recurring themes of his candidacy, namely the optimistic acknowledgment of progress and the desire to move forward while constantly re-assessing the situation, with a discerning eye ever turned towards disentangling the American military from Iraq. John McCain, on the other hand, is focusing on negativity (and its inevitable corollary, fear). Listen to his overall assessment of Obama’s positions on Iraq:

“The fact is, if we had done what Senator Obama wanted to do, we would have lost. And we would have faced a wider war. And we would have had greater problems in Afghanistan and the entire region. And Iran would have increased their influence”.

First of all, there’s the backhanded implication that since we “would have lost” had we followed Barack Obama’s plan, we have therefore “won” by deferring to McCain’s preferred policies in Iraq. However, I find his last three talking points most interesting for their surely unintended resonances. First of all: do we not now face a wider war in any event? Hasn’t this ill-defined War on Terror always been a far-reaching, nation-spanning, decidedly wide war by definition? And considering that Iraq was never as much of a terrorist threat as some other nations, does “victory” there really narrow the scope of our war at all? Which brings me to McCain’s point regarding Afghanistan: define “bigger problems”, if you would, sir. Afghanistan has recently gotten worse, not better, and if anything the idea has emerged that the necessity of focusing our military presence on Iraq has hurt our position in the terrorist pressure-cooker of Afghanistan. Finally, regarding Iran: has their “influence” on the world stage decreased whatsoever? Have you read a paper lately, Mr. McCain (I heartily recommend the New York Times)? We’re still talking about Iran quite a bit, John, and you are no stranger to making dramatic, aggressive implications of military action against that nation. So what is your point, ultimately? That the surge worked? Fine. But don’t try to cast that net of minor military success over all the other threads of the Middle East. Just because the plan you backed may have stabilized Iraq to some degree doesn’t mean it has dissolved the morass of military and political problems in the region. And the way Senator Obama is handling this trip, projecting an air of positivity and well-reasoned policy, people are going to realize that he is the man who can lead us out of this morass that you helped create.

And lest you think I’ve lost my cynical edge and this is some kind of fawning, pro-Obama missive, allow me to quote a citizen of Jordan, Mr. Muhammad al-Banna. Asked about his preference in the American election, he mused “…they are all bad, but still, Obama might be a little less bad”.

Amen. Vote for him. Vote for less badness, more goodness.