The campaign's winning issue

Here's the odd thing about Iraq and the American presidential campaign: both John McCain and Barack Obama want to keep it at the top of the agenda. This is because both senators believe the war is an issue on which they can win, albeit for very different reasons.

It was not always thus. Almost exactly a year ago George Will, the grand old man of GOP-leaning political commentators, remarked that if the Republicans fought another election on the issue of Iraq, tweezers would be required to pick up the party's remains. But today's Iraq is a very different place from the Iraq of a year or two ago. It is now widely accepted across the American political spectrum that the troop surge President George W. Bush ordered early last year has been a great success. Thanks to American soldiers, violence has decreased dramatically and Iraq is on the mend.

At least that is what most Americans are said to believe. I use that particular construction because while my television tells me constantly that everyone knows Iraq has turned a corner because of the surge, the questions I get when the subject comes up in daily conversation evince little of the media's triumphalism.

My own view is that this, like every other public discussion we Americans have ever had about Iraq, is a gross oversimplification. Things are better in Iraq - but that does not mean they are good. Nor does it necessarily mean that the troop surge is the sole reason for whatever improvement we can see.

Take, for example, the Anbar Awakening. US officials trumpet this alliance with Sunni tribal leaders in western Iraq against Al Qaida as a major victory. But it can just as easily be seen as a tactical gain driven by a temporary confluence of interests - one that could fall apart as quickly as it came together.

And even if the preferred American storyline is true, does any of it mean we are 'winning', as McCain keeps insisting? That would require an agreed-upon definition of 'win', and any quick perusal of American political commentary will show that no such agreement exists.

Still, it is easy to see why Iraq remains the centrepiece of the McCain campaign. The Arizona senator was a career military officer and has focused on security and defence issues throughout his political career. He was pushing for a troop surge when the administration was still in deep denial about the mess it was creating in Iraq.

Moral obligation

His message is simple: thanks to the surge America is 'winning'. This creates a moral obligation (towards American soldiers) to push on until 'victory'. Anything else would constitute betrayal (again, of the Americans... Iraqis do not figure heavily in this equation). The simple patriotism of this approach appeals to many people because it is closely linked to the image we, Americans, like to have of ourselves and of our history. McCain has had more trouble answering the obvious question that comes next: if we're 'winning' then why do we have to stay, and keep fighting, indefinitely?

McCain's case, in essence, is that he has the experience to know when to leave and Obama does not. If, by November, a majority of Americans can be convinced that it takes lots of military experience to know when and how to get out of a bad war, then McCain will be president.

Obama takes a different approach, saying that a leader with really sound judgment would never have supported invading Iraq in the first place. If McCain sees victory in the idea that people will be unwilling to entrust command of the American military to a president with little background in national security, Obama, in contrast, believes people are scared by the idea of never-ending war against an ever-widening circle of enemies. If, by November, Obama has convinced a majority of Americans that real judgment lies in knowing when to talk instead of fight then he will be president.

Obama's recent trip to Afghanistan, the Middle East and Iraq was an attempt to answer both ends of that equation. Seeking to show that he was willing to talk to everyone, but also could command the respect of America's armed services.

In this respect Obama's biggest accomplishment may have been the television images of him consulting with General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, without appearing to take orders from the general. Pictures of the two flying over Baghdad in a helicopter conveyed an impression that a candidate being briefed, not tutored. In taking Obama seriously Petraeus added to the candidate's stature. Perhaps more importantly, Obama came across as a civilian leader respectful of, but not awed or cowed by, the military.

Obama, in short, believes Iraq may win him the election because it offers him a way to demonstrate presidential judgment and temperament. McCain, in contrast, believes Americans are haunted by a fear of 'losing' and will see Iraq as a test of toughness above all else. This judgment vs. toughness divide can be seen as the main gap separating Obama and McCain's approaches to any number of issues.

The question, moving towards November, will be which man's reading of the country and its mood is more accurate.

Gordon Robison is a journalist and consultant based in Burlington, Vermont. He has lived in and reported on the Middle East for two decades, including assignments in Baghdad for both CNN and Fox News.