Up until now, Barack Obama has made the case that the war in Iraq should have never been authorized, that the troop surge was a failure, and that we should withdraw most of our troops. The strength of this position is largely responsible for his victory in the primary. But what if the situation in Iraq is improving?

Up until now, many have argued that the surge was a tactical victory but a strategic failure. It reduced violence but failed to create an environment for political progress. But in the recent issue of The Economist, a pair ofarticles argue that the country is making significant progress. U.S. military casualties and Iraqi civilian deaths are lower than they’ve been since the war began. Oil production is higher than just before the war, and profits are soaring (thanks to high prices, of course). There are even some early signs that the Iraqi government is finally starting to function.

If Barack Obama continues to frame the troop surge as a failure, he risks looking as detached from reality as President Bush. Okay — well, maybe not that detached. But somewhat detached.

There are those who will argue that we are winning. Winning what? Don’t the Iraqi people deserve any credit at all? Obama should acknowledge that the situation in Iraq is improving. He should praise the bravery of General Patraeus, the U.S. military, and most of all, the Iraqi people. The trick here is to not look like a flip-flopper, but instead like he’s adjusting his position to reflect recent events.

Obama needs to re-frame the Iraq debate. He should emphasize how much money the war is costing us — money that could be spent on education and health care. He could talk about how the military is stretched too thin, how soldiers have done too many consecutive tours of duty (an issue McCain thinks is “not too important”), and how we need to concentrate on Afghanistan.

Most of all, Obama should criticize the Bush / McCain plan for a long-term U.S. troop presence. At the end of this year, the United Nations resolution that authorized the U.S. presence in Iraq will expire. President Bush is currently in negotiations with the Iraqi government over the nature of U.S. presence in Iraq. Bush denied that he was trying to establish permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, although Iraqi leaders said he was. Whatever the specifics, it’s clear that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wants to curb U.S. powers including, according toThe Economist, “the power to detain Iraqi citizens, to launch military attacks without having to consult the Iraqi authorities, to fly through Iraqi airspace at will, and to give American soldiers and contractors immunity from prosecution if they break Iraqi laws.”

One way to re-frame the debate would be to make the case for Iraqi sovereignty. The U.S. should try to help the Iraqi government, not act as imperialist rulers. He could then talk about a partial troop withdrawal, leaving a certain number in accordance with the wishes of the Iraq government. But in particular, he should come out strongly against McCain’s plan for a South Korea-like 100 year commitment.

Of course, making this argument would leave Obama open to any number of criticisms. Some would say that giving in to Maliki’s requests would endanger U.S. lives, or weaken our hand in fighting Al-Qaeda. To some, it would sound like we’re bending to the will of some third-rate country, or that we’re being overly internationalist. And some would argue that any troop withdrawal at all would lead to a spike in violence. The latter is a possibility, but hardly a foregone conclusion.

Which is why Obama should try to leave his options open. He should say that as President, he would respond to the facts on the ground, that he’d listen to U.S generals, but also to the Iraqi people. He should cast McCain as the stubborn one. As a recent New York Times editorial pointed out, “Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain cannot have it both ways: insisting that American troops must stay if things go badly, and that they must stay if they go well.”

Politically speaking, it’s a fine line to walk. He’s open to attacks from right and left. But it’s also the right argument to make. The less the Iraqi government is seen as a puppet of the U.S. government, the better a chance it has of winning over its people. And the less the U.S. government looks like a colonialist juggernaut, the better a chance it has of winning over people around the world. That is what an Obama presidency should be about.

–Hillel Aron