Barack Obama is clearly trying to play down the success of the Surge Strategy in Iraq by "dissing" the work of our brave U.S. Troops in a variety of ways.

He says the overall objective of a stable Iraq has not been achieved, but we are well on our way to that thanks to the success of the Surge Strategy. Where would Iraq be on the stability scale if we had abandoned it to the terrorists two years ago, as Obama called for?

Obama is taking the approach of praising the work of our troops out of one side of his mouth, while he gives equal credit for the Surge Success (which he won't call a success) to "political factors" that just happened to coincide with the Surge Strategy. In other words, he wants us to believe it was not really the U.S. Troops who have successfully transformed Iraq with the Surge, it was just a coincidence that these "political factors" came about at the same time! Of course, Obama is never asked by an adoring press corps if he believes the fact America sent more troops to stabilize Iraq gave the Iraqis the courage to know that if they stood up to Al-Qaeda the Americans would be right there to back them up. Of course it did! Had we not sent more troops, which showed our commitment and resolve to win, the "political factors" on the ground would not have moved in a positive direction.

This demonstrates that Barack Obama is dishonest, and he will even stoop to downplaying the credit our troops deserve in bringing about the transformation of Iraq. Why? Because it is not in his interests for America to win in Iraq. He gains if America loses. When he staked his entire political future on defeat in Iraq, he underestimated the ability of American Soldiers to do the impossible. Barack Obama is not fit to lead our Armed Forces, because he does not even respect them enough to give them the credit they so richly deserve.

Barack Obama continued Tuesday to downplay the results of the so-called troop surge in Iraq, telling CBS News that while he credits the surge with helping to reduce violence in Iraq it “doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal.”

Earlier, Obama — in the middle of an overseas trip that so far has taken him to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Jordan — had drawn criticism from John McCain’s campaign after he told ABC News that, knowing what he knows now, he still would have opposed the troop surge in Iraq.

Asked about that comment, Obama said in his latest interview with CBS News that “there’s no doubt” spending billions a month in Iraq and sending extra troops will “have an impact.”

“But it doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term,” he said, repeating his argument that the resources spent in Iraq are detracting from U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.

The Illinois senator again said the surge is just one of several factors that has helped reduce violence.

“There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with Al Qaeda,” he said.

Obama earlier in the day declined to rate the troop surge as a success, saying: “I think that the definition of success depends on how you look at it.

“Originally, the administration suggested that the key measure was whether it gave breathing room for political reconciliation. So far, I think we have not seen the kind of political reconciliation that’s going to bring about long-term stability in Iraq,” he said.

McCain told CBS News that Obama’s view of the surge is “really quite a commentary.”

Asked what he meant by that, McCain said: “That Senator Obama does not understand the challenges we face and … the need for the surge. And the fact that he did not understand that, and still denies that it has succeeded, I think the American people will make their judgment.”