It had to happen. Since snaring the Democratic nomination by pushing the strongest ‘get out of Iraq’ line, Senator Barack Obama is now saying his policy is in fact conditional on a victory.

Just to be sure, he is heading to Iraq where he will claim his line accords with the successful surge strategy of President Bush and that the withdrawal ‘within 16 months’ timeline can be tailored to already existing plans.

The New York Times’ politics blog reports him as saying last week (in Fargo, incidentally): “My 16-month timeline, if you examine everything that I’ve said, was always premised on making sure that our troops were safe. I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective. My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable. I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”

That received some predictable coverage, which he didn’t like. So a few hours later he called another media conference (a rare occurrence). This time the answer was “refined” this way:
“I’ve also said that I would be deliberate and careful in how we got out, that I would bring our troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month and that pace would have our combat troops out in 16 months. That position has not changed. I have not equivocated on that position, I am not searching for manoeuvring room with respect to that position.”

He went on to expand on the role of US troops, before they withdraw, and ends up sounding much the same as President Bush and Republican candidate John McCain:
“There’s been a major debate in terms of how we should structure training for Iraqi military and police. What kinds of troop presences will we need in order for that to occur? What kinds of troop presences do we need to have a counter terrorism strike force in Iraq that ensures that Al Qaeda does not regain a foothold there. Those are all issues that obviously are going to be determined by the facts on the ground.”
Senator Obama wrapped up with this: “Let me be as clear as I can be, I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war – responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.”

That sounds like ending the war with a victory rather than giving in, as most of the anti-war brigade wanted when they decided to back Senator Obama all the way to the White House.

Of course, you say, this what politicians do all the time: Bend their words to suit the audience, then do what they always intended. The questions remain: Is Senator Obama’s stated desire for victory in Iraq against Al Qaeda any different from what is being done by the Bush administration? Does really want to quit within 16 months now victory is closer?

No doubt further policy “refinements” will occur during his visit to Iraq, now it is safe to go there. CanWest says says the trip details are ‘secretive’ and the spin is being put on the Afghanistan leg, where Senator Obama has been unequivocal about the need for victory.

Meanwhile, the New York Times coverage is now turning to more important stuff, such as restoring Iraq as one of the world’s leading oil producers.

If the war was really about oil, then the evidence is not hard to find. The Times’ Baghdad Bureau reports Iraq will have oil revenues of $US70 billion this year, and this will increase if, as planned, more western oil companies bring in their technology  to boost output.

That news, surely, will bring badly needed relief to the rest of the world.