Barack Obama actually said he would not have supported the surge, even knowing what he knows now. He would have preferred complete withdrawal, which, under his grand Utopian worldview, would have already been accomplished by now. The old tale Barack Obama tells never follows through to its assuredly disastrous ending (alas, we can ask Hillary Clinton about Obama’s finishing abilities).

In short, we would already be out of Iraq, and the Iran funded Shiite religiocide of Sunnis would be well underway.

What this means, in real-world speak, is that Barack Obama would have been perfectly at peace with having lost Iraq to Iran. And, it seems safe to say, he has also reached a troubling mahamudra with losing Iraq in the future. The Washington Post called Obama “indifferent” to success in Iraq. I think that may be too kind. He is not merely apathetic. He is actively advocating policies that would assure America’s defeat to an enemy who is mentally mired in the 8th century.

But oh, how the Europeans would like us!

As John McCain perceptively noted, Barack Obama would not have been able to visit Iraq if his own policies had been implemented. This irony is lost on the Democrats’ nominee and the vast swath of liberals who wish for an America something less American than what the Founders deigned her to be. It is not just the adolescent desire to be “liked” by the rest of the world (no matter how unworthy the rest of the world actually is) that drives them, but a core belief that the socialistic European model is superior. This Euro-fondness is projected onto our foreign policy.

Barack Obama claims, above all his “qualifications” for the Oval Office, to possess superior judgment to John McCain. The evidence, however, is massively to the contrary.