From JohnMcCain.com

Obama's Evolving View of Military Power

Nobody's done more to try and figure out Obama's position on Iraq than Michael Crowley, and yesterday he followed up up with an attempt to trace Obama's use of the word "stability" in his public statements on the subject.

The peg is Obama's comment last week that his "guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable." That "stability" was now a criterion for withdrawal set off a frenzy, though Obama subsequently assured the press he meant to indicate no change in his position. Likewise, Crowley was told by the campaign that Obama "has long talked about 'stability' as a component of his Iraq plan," but the only evidence Crowley could find was this quote from last July:

“We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they’re asking the wrong question,” [Obama] said. “We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade.”
If Obama hasn't changed his position on Iraq, this would seem, at the very least, to suggest a fundamental change in the way Obama views military power. A year ago he did not believe military force could bring stability to Iraq. Now the strategy he opposed has done just that and Obama's statement reflects that success by acknowledging the link between the current stability and the presence of U.S. troops.

Of course, it wasn't always so. Obama's judgment of the surge has...evolved.

---------------------------------------------------------------
This, along with the fact that Obama does not know the role of the Joint Chiefs, is stunning when you consider he wants to lead the greatest country in the world.