Obama's real problem with the Iraq issue

WASHINGTON - The presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States, Barack Obama, opted to update a dated position: "When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information, and will continue to refine my policies," he said. This is an appropriate approach, which is only stained by his previous approach - a groundless promise to bring the U.S. forces home within a year and a half after his election.

There are four options: Obama did not seriously mean his promise for a withdrawal, or he is now not being serious, or he was originally mistaken in his assessment of the situation and the desired resolution, or he is wrong now. In any case, we must be glad that Obama is a candidate who is capable of changing his view on a position whose time has past.

Maybe he did it because he recognized that his stance is not "politically" acceptable, in view of the operational successes of U.S. forces - after American voters noticed that bolstering the number of troops on the ground works. Maybe he understood that it is not "diplomatically" reasonable; from the onset, it had not been clear how he intended to suddenly get up and leave Iraq. In any case, he did something that every president must do, and that most do: He looked at the reality and changed his position.

The storm that broke out after his statements was expected: This is an election year. The skepticism is also understood: Who can guarantee that Obama will not change his mind again? On the other hand, the alternative - sticking to a policy whose foundations have collapsed - is much worse. When he visits Iraq during the second half of the month - when he will also visit Israel - Obama will be able to complete the correction: I came, I listened, I was updated, I formulated the right policy at this time.

In any case, John McCain's campaign is already attacking Obama. "You see," they say, "McCain was right in his initial diagnosis, and you were wrong." That is a correct claim. Obama will then present his diagnostic rebuttal with his earlier position: The war in Iraq should not have taken place in the first place. Most of the American public agrees, even if it has been convinced that in light of the terrible circumstances, bolstering the ground forces was the right thing at the time.

The second argument raised by McCain's supporters is more problematic, in view of the alternative mentioned above: Obama is a "flip-flopper," he is not consistent. During the 2004 elections, most of the voters thought that Democratic candidate John Kerry was inclined to this sort of inconsistency, and two-thirds thought that George W. Bush was the candidate who would not alter his views because of fluctuating political circumstances.

This was one of the reasons why Bush beat Kerry. Perhaps this is also the reason for Kerry's automatic response when he heard similar charges on the issue of Iraq being directed against Obama, whom he supports: "But it is no change whatsoever in [Obama's] fundamental determination to end the war."

This may be true, but, as they say, that is not the point. McCain will also gladly end the war if and when the results he desires are achieved. There was certainly a change in Obama's stance - for the better. It could be that Kerry is finding it difficult to come to terms with this change.

Obama's true problem in this context is neither from the right, which is going to find it difficult to back him under any circumstances, nor from the center, which understands that circumstances change and require political flexibility (alas, a CNN poll found that nearly 60 percent of the voters believe that both McCain and Obama changed their views on various issues because of political reasons, and will still give them their vote).

Obama's problem in the context of Iraq is with his more enthusiastic supporters: the liberals, the believers, the young. The ones who thought that Obama will really meet with the Iranian president unconditionally (his advisers have for weeks now been saying that there will be "preparations" necessary for such a meeting, meaning, conditions); those who believed that he, alone, will change Washington, or will put an end to global warming, or that he holds the magic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

There are also those who still believe that Obama can make fundamental and lasting changes regarding America's image in the world, merely by being elected. And there are those who thought that Obama would simply leave Iraq, one bright day, simply because they have had it with that country and that war. To all those, Obama is now doing a great service: He is reeducating them, drawing them down to the ground of reality. Like every politician, much of what he promises he will not be able to fulfill. And there are also promises that he will not wish to keep.