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.