Obama's Iraq visit: A different take on what it means

Allow a few standard talking points/accusations/labels/whatever one wants to call them to be gotten out of the way about Sen. Barack Obama's trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Europe trip is really the only photo op part of the trip, that is to say the part of the trip done solely for a photo op.
1) He has to change his rhetoric as to how things are going in Iraq, that he must admit the success that has been achieved.
2) If he doesn't come home saying that he'll still stick to his 16-month plan he's a flip-flopper.
3) How can Obama have a plan for Iraq/Afghanistan without having been there on the ground in over 800 days/never.
4) Will he still be able to accept defeat after being there?
5) Insert your own point here(or in the comments):


This Iraq/Afghanistan trip for Obama gives him a real opportunity on a couple things, which will have huge political consequences. This gives him the opportunity to take a stance that goes against the heads of his party (Pelosi, Dean), showing that for the first time he's willing to stand against his party on something, excuse the cliche, "big". On the flip side -no pun intended- he can show he's willing to stand by his belief/conviction about this war being the wrong war and that Afghanistan is far more important, a stance that wouldn't add to the list of debatable flip-flops. Obviously both stances could harm and help him at the same time.

If it is true that elections are won in the middle, specifically Democrats can only win in the middle then the former stance must be taken but done something like this: "I still believe this war was the wrong war and I still believe that permanent bases aren't in our interest in any way. I do however acknowledge the gains made and accept the fact that more troops than I wish will need to stay in Iraq at least through the election in '09 or sooner if the Iraqi's are able to have full security/military control by mid-09. I will still be drawing down some Iraqi troops to re-deploy into Afghanistan as soon as possible as the security situation there demands more troops". This would obviously still alienate some of his base to the point they may, probably not likely they would, stay home or the more likely situation where they vote for Nader. Sen. Obama's campaign may also find or rather believe that despite the outcries of his change in Iraqi policy that his supporters, both the extreme part of his base and your more run of the mill Democrats will still view him as "at least better than McCain", that good old standby if you will of "lesser of two evils". He would also have to immediately do his best to emphasize and focus on Afghanistan, try to make his plan for Afghanistan/Pakistan the focus leaving his change in Iraqi policy a side note.

If it is possible for a Democrat to win by igniting his base, as Republicans have been able to do (specifically our current Pres. Bush) then the latter stance must be maintained but with a more consistent emphasis on him talking about listening to his commanders (which he only emphasizes sparingly) as to the best way to draw down within 16 months, mainly so that when he hasn't brought us out of Iraq by the end of 2010 his base isn't so shocked and/or hurt that he can't win re-election 2012.

Obviously no matter what he does/says when comes back he will be open to attacks from Sen. John McCain, the Republican party, talking pundits, bloggers, op-ed writers, editorials, etc but he must take this opportunity to show how he'll handle foreign policy matters that are always changing. Does he change with them or stand by his beliefs?