Goldfarb or, rather, The McCain Report makes a prediction: "The left should brace itself: Obama's going to be pro-surge, pro-troops, and pro-victory by this time next month." How does one begin to unpack the idiocy behind such a statement? Obama has always been pro-troops. Being "pro-surge" is a pretty meaningless concept now it's ending (though not meaningless a year ago). But pro-victory? Against whom? And yes, of course, the alternative to "victory" is always "surrender."

A clear sign that the neocon right is unserious about foreign policy is the use of these kind of slogans instead of actual thought or argument. On the deeper point: yes, Obama will surely adjust his Iraq policy to facts on the ground. But his long-term strategy will not be a permanent troop presence in Iraq. And yes, that will frustrate those Republicans who want to run against McGovern for the umpteenth time.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to