Whether or not one believes the 'surge' of U.S. forces in Iraq has actually worked, Sen. John McCain has gotten a lot of mileage, certainly with the press, for his early support of the tactic. He would have everyone believe that his position was based on his superior knowledge of foreign policy and military tactics. I have a contrarian view. What experience was McCain drawing on to reach his position? Let me suggest the following:.That John McCain, coming from a proud family tradition of military service in support of victorious causes, and suffering more than most can imagine in the failed Viet Nam war, would view a similar outcome in Iraq as completely unacceptable. He would naturally be led to promote a strategy that could lead to victory (McCain repeatedly talks about victory in Iraq as being necessary, and belittles Sen. Obama's call for a withdrawal as a surrender - a bitter pill to have to swallow twice). Unfortunately, we'll never know whether McCain's stance on the surge was based on shrewd analysis of the situation on the ground (as he would have us believe) or a gut reaction to avoid the humiliation America came out of Viet Nam with. In any event Obama has generally shown better judgment and insight than McCain in his approaches to Iraq, Iran, al Qaida and Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Why is Obama accused of "flip-flopping" and not "reaching out across the aisle" when he changes direction sometimes. Time's running out, folks and we need to start asking the tough questions.

If you are interested in reading an objective explanation of the surge, please look for the Foriegn Affairs article on the surge by Steven Simon in the May/June 2008 issue. Read this through and you'll see that initially the surge failed and didn't achieve any success until it was altered. Its 'top-down' paradigm had to be changed, which resulted into what we have today.

Please Give it a read.

So, if John McCain is resopnsible for the surge and wants to bathe in the glory for its success, it should be made known that initially the surge failed, as you'll read in the Foriegn Affairs piece, as Obama and many others predicted it would if implimented as presented. Why is that notion not explained?

When Obama is degaded for not supporting the "Surge" and McCain praised, why isn't it a knee-jerk reaction for the Obama supporter to immediately state that Obama voted against the war in the first place

Insight? Wisdom? If an Obama supporter gets on the air, he or she sjould be loaded for bear and ready to snap back that if Obama had his way this conversation would be moot.

Rachael, I love you. but you need to start playing hardball.