JERUSALEM, Israel — 1:50 a.m. local time —  

The Obama campaign just informed the reporters traveling with him that his senior foreign policy adviser, Susan Rice, will brief reporters today (Wednesday) on Obama’s meeting Tuesday with King Abdullah of Jordan and on his upcoming meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders will be on-the-record.

The campaign also assured reporters there will be more opportunities to question Obama directly as the trip continues.

Obama has a jam-packed day Wednesday. It starts with a visit to Yad Vasham (the Holocaust museum here) then a meeting with a family living in Sderot, the community at the northern tip of the Gaza Strip that has suffered for seven years –but more so in recent years — from Qassam rockets fired by Palestinians. Obama, his advisers said, is to obtain an understanding of the hardships Israeli families in Sderot have suffered through. He will travel to Sderot by helicopter with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

According to Israeli figures, 13 residents of Sderot have died from Qassam rocket attacks in the past seven years, with four deaths counted this year. Israeli retaliation in the densely populated Gaza Strip has left hundreds of Palestinians dead since the Qassam attacks began. A cease and the presence of Israeli Army helicopters overhead is expected to make Obama’s visit trouble-free.

From Sderot, Obama will meet with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu and then travel by car to Ramallah in the West Bank to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salem Fayad. Obama will also meet with former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres. The campaign is contemplating an Obama visit to the Western Wall, but it is not currently on the schedule. The fact that Obama, according to an aide, “really wants to do it,” suggests this will, in fact, happen.

Two senior advisers for Barack Obama came to the rear of the press plane to brief reporters Tuesday — on background, meaning no quote attributable to anyone — about Obama’s one-on-one with King Abdullah and the subsequent dinner.

The press corps rebelled, demanding an on-the-record briefing since Obama is in the middle of a presidential campaign and that campaign must be held accountable for what it does and what Obama says about his meeting with world leaders.

The senior Obama advisers refused. One, a former high-ranking official in the Clinton White House, said the briefing had to be on background because “in all my years with the White House I never read-out a meeting on the record.”

Numerous reporters said Obama wasn’t the president and this isn’t a Whiter House trip.

Considering the massive interest in the trip, reporters are demanding basic levels of transparency.

The senior Obama staff refused to break the “on background” rules and no briefing occurred.

So, as yet, no on-the-record details about Obama’s meeting with Abdullah or the subsequent dinner with the King’s senior political, military and intelligence advisers.

Obama’s camp pledged “to revisit” the system of briefing reporters.

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser…

The RNC is pumping this quote and pointing to this article from Politico: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4A670F03-3048-5C12-002034DF88C14E66

Some observations on this issue.

The exchange over the Berlin speech lasted nearly 10 minutes in a briefing that last nearly an hour. The briefing was, by Obama campaign decree, on background – meaning we could not directly quote a single Obama adviser by name.

During this back-and-forth over Thursday’s speech in Berlin at the Victory Column there was a good deal of cross-talk and sheepish Obama advisers dancing around the obvious – that from Jordan through the rest of the trip everything is a campaign event and, with the exception of some security arrangements in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, is under Obama’s control.
The Obama advisers dodged and weaved about why Obama’s delivering the speech before what could be an audience of tens of thousands – possibly more.
“The senator wants to speak to the people of Europe and it would be inconsistent to exclude the public.”
In the midst of this tense exchange, an adviser said when the president delivers a policy speech it’s not necessarily the same as delivering a red-meat political speech. That’s not an illogical statement, except for the fact that Obama, of course, isn’t the president.
The use of this example, though, perfectly encapsulates the Obama campaign’s dual approach to this trip. Everything is designed to make Obama look presidential and the Berlin speech is by far the one with the most intense head-of-state choreography behind it.
So when the adviser said it was like a presidential speech, it didn’t sound as if the adviser was saying Obama was the president. Before this exchange, advisers said over and over that Obama will set no policy on this trip and seeks only to build relationships, not confuse world leaders about who leads America. This, it seems, is an important bit of context.
What was being said, however, goes to the heart of the internal campaign instinct to make Obama look like a president as often as possible on this trip — and especially at the massive event/speech in Berlin.
It was in this context this exchange occurred;

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser…

“He is going to talk about the issues as an individual … not as a candidate, but as an individual, as a senator,” the adviser added.

The Obama campaign will run the show now that Obama has arrived in Amman.
The US embassy provided almost no help in arranging the visit to the Citadel (where the press conference will be held) and is not facilitating the meeting between Obama and King Abdullah.

The movements and pictures from this day forward are entirely dictated by Obama’s presidential campaign. While it is true Obama is traveling as a senator, he’s also the Democratic nominee and the trip is intended not only to show his ability to maneuver comfortably on the world stage, it’s also designed, by the campaign’s own admission, to give voters back home a chance to grow more comfortable with movements and settings on the world stage that convey commander-in-chief imagery.

Lastly, the campaign repeatedly dodged questions about whether it would position a camera crew of its own at the Berlin speech for the express purpose of shooting the scene for future campaign ads. The campaign will bring its standard videographers who shoot for the campaign website to the Citadel today and there are no arrangement for a separate commercial camera crew at that event. That there may be one at the Berlin speech suggests that event could produce footage for future Obama campaign commercials. That is not certain, but it is a possibility.

One other note, the campaign deferred questions about Obama’s security arrangements in Ramallah. We should receive a more precise read-out on that tomorrow. Either Fatah or Hamas must coordinate security for this visit and that could complicate matters for Obama. Tony Blair recently canceled a trip to the territories over this and other issues.

AMMAN, Jordan — 3:30 a.m. local time –

In the previous post, I noted Barack Obama, in an interview with ABC’s Terry Moran, said if he had it to do over, knowing what he knows now, he would not support the U.S. troop surge in Iraq.

Moments ago, John McCain’s presidential campaign released this statement via spokesman Tucker Bounds:

“Barack Obama admitted tonight that he would rather see failure in Iraq than concede that he was wrong about the surge. A candidate who places his political ambition ahead of our national interests does not pass the threshold to be commander-in-chief.”

From AMMAN, Jordan 3:10 a.m. local time –

Sens. Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, and Jack Reed just released a statement about their day in Iraq. The three are overnighting in Baghdad and will arrive in Amman tomorrow for their first and only press conference of their trip to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The statement notes the security progress in Iraq but gives the new military tactics a fraction of the credit for the reduction in violence. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, and Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, all opposed the troop surge.

Obama in an interview with ABC News that’s posted at the bottom of this story in which he says if he had it to do all over again he would still oppose the troop surge. He told ABC what he did not expect or anticipate in Iraq was the Sunni uprising against Al Qaeda and among the Shi’ites decision to play ball politically via cease fires rather than continue their campaign of violence. How the surge affected the calculations in either case is left unsaid by Obama, according to ABC.

The surge is and has been the central story in Iraq since it began in January 2007. Obama, who told CBS on Sunday, that he “never” has doubts about his foreign policy, is in no way re-evaluating the surge or what he did or did not anticipate would arise from it. This may give fodder to John McCain’s camp and other skeptics of Obama’s approach to military tactics, strategic thinking and the ability to adapt his own views to unexpected events.

Back to the joint statement from all three senators. Obama, Hagel and Reed say there is a “consensus” in Iraq for an “aspirational time” for troop withdrawals that are fixed by a “clear date.” That may sound like intentionally fuzzed up language. It is. It half-loaves much of the troop withdrawal language of the last 72 hours. It adopts the White House-Iraqi Friday word “aspirational” — which means condition-driven — when discussing future troop withdrawals. It also links that to “clear date” for troop withdrawals, which echoes Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki’s general endorsement of Obama’s 16-month troop withdrawal timetable. The statement also says 2010 is a reasonable time for the cessation of all U.S. combat missions, but also leaves open the possibility of the prolonged presence of U.S. troops for training and missions against Al Qaeda. Here’s the rub on that. Combat teams will have to deal with Al Qaeda so, CLEARLY, this scenario envisions at least SOME continued U.S. combat presence in Iraq, even after 2010.

Here is the full statement:

BAGHDAD, IRAQ – U.S. Senators Barack Obama, Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel traveled today to Iraq, first to Basra, then to Baghdad.

In Basra, they met with U.S., British and Iraqi troops; Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin, Commander Multinational Corps – Iraq; Major General Barney White-Spunner (UK), Commander, Multinational Division Southeast; and Major General Abdul Aziz, Commander, 14th Iraqi Army Division. In Baghdad, the Senators met with U.S. troops; Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki; President Jalal Talabani; Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi; and Vice President Adil Abdulmahdi. They received a detailed briefing from and consulted extensively with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus, Commander, MNF Iraq. They visited with doctors, nurses and patients at the 86th Combat Support Hospital and took part in a helicopter over flight of Baghdad conducted by General Petraeus.

“We are in Iraq to thank our troops, diplomats and civilians for the remarkable job they are doing and to let them know that, back home, Americans are proud of them. We came to consult with our military leaders, embassy team and the Iraqi government about a way forward in Iraq that advances the interests of the United States, Iraq and the entire region.

“We found a strong, emerging consensus on a number of critical points:

“First, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our armed forces, more effective Iraqi security forces, the decision by the Sunni Awakening to fight ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ and the cease-fire by Shiite militia, violence in Iraq is down significantly. An overwhelming majority of Iraqis reject what remains of ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq’ and violent militias.

“Second, political progress, reconciliation and economic development continue to lag. There has been some forward movement, but not nearly enough to bring lasting stability to Iraq.

“Third, Iraqis want an aspirational timeline, with a clear date, for the redeployment of American combat forces. Prime Minister Maliki told us that while the Iraqi people deeply appreciate the sacrifices of American soldiers, they do not want an open-ended presence of U.S. combat forces. The Prime Minister said that now is an appropriate time to start to plan for the reorganization of our troops in Iraq — including their numbers and missions. He stated his hope that U.S. combat forces could be out of Iraq in 2010.

“Fourth, Iraqis seek a long term partnership with the United States to promote political and economic progress and lasting stability. In particular, they want our continued help in training Iraqi security forces, helping conduct counter-terrorism operations, developing Iraq’s economy and advancing political compromise. Vice President Abdulmahdi noted that “the quality of American engagement matters more than the quantity.”

“We raised a number of other issues with the Iraqi leadership, including our deep concern about Iranian financial and material assistance to militia engaged in violent acts against American and Iraqi forces; the need to secure public support through our respective legislatures for any long term security agreements our countries negotiate; the importance of doing more to help the more than 4 million Iraqis who are refugees or internally displaced persons; and the need to give our troops immunity from Iraqi prosecution so long as they are in Iraq.

“America has a strategic opportunity to build a new kind of partnership with Iraq and to refocus our foreign policy on the many other pressing challenges around the world – starting with the resurgence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Here is the ABC interview with Obama. ABC correspondent Terry Moran conducted the interview. This segment ran on World News Tonight. A longer version may air on Nightline.

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

Obama: No. Because, keep in mind that —

Q: You wouldn’t?

Obama: Keep in mind, these kind of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know hindsight is 20/20. But I think that what I am absolutely convinced of is at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I just disagreed with.

In the close to his ABC story, Moran said this:

“And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says that he still would have opposed the surge but said he didn’t anticipate what people here call the Iraqi surge uprising against Al Qaeda and Shi’ite extremists. He said he didn’t anticipate that, but he is insisting that he is focusing forward on what needs to be done — setting that timetable for withdrawal.”

The Obama press conference with Hagel and Reed joining him is scheduled for 5 p.m. local, 10 a.m. eastern at the Citadel overlooking Amman.

We arrived in Amman, Jordan, about 6 p.m. local time to temperatures in the mid-90s and a slow, steady breeze.

Clambering on buses we headed into downtown Amman, created by billboards for billboards for all-variety of high-end goods (watches, flat-panel televisions, to name just two). We also passed a road sign showing the direct route to Iraq. We didn’t make the turn.

In downtown, traffic tightened considerably on our two-lane road with very pale lane markers. I noticed that cars really don’t follow lane markers so much as their own desire to dodge in and around traffic. The main streets signs are in Arabic and English while most local businesses announce themselves with billboards in Arabic.

Near the Four Seasons, the press hotel, we spied a string of familiar fast food restaurants: Burger King, Popeye’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken (known now by its universal KFC logo). The massive U.S. fast food places announce themselves in Arabic and English.

A giant traffic circle near the hotel showed how traffic moves — no rules, but eye contact and speed rule all maneuvers and it appears to work. En route to the hotel, we warned about walking in Jordan. It’s safe, but there is no tradition of yielding to pedestrians. “No one will stop for you and there are no crosswalks or pedestrian crossings of any kind. So be careful.”

Obama’s traveling advisers appear very upbeat about the Afghanistan and Iraq parts of the trip. A press conference with Obama and his traveling companions, Sens. Jack Reed D-R.I., and Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, is planned at the Citadel in Jordan tomorrow. We were advised the press conference setting is very hot and to wear lots of sunscreen — an Obama advance staffer said she wore SPF 70 sunscreen and still got a bit burned. The Bourbon Room is thinking of arriving in a burlap bag — hot, but no sunburn.

More updates to come…..especially as we get a better sense of the policy agenda as far as Obama’s meeting with King Abdullah tomorrow.

The press charter for Obama’s overseas trip is about to take off from Chicago’s Midway Airport. We will refuel in Shannon, Ireland, and land in Amman, Jordan. Here is a quick Q and A explainer of why all of us are still here — in Chicago — while Obama is NOT. He’s been to Afghanistan and is en route to eventually visit Iraq. This is not a secret. The precise timing and location of the Iraq leg cannot and will not be discussed, for security reasons.

I prepared this memo for internal network consumption. It’s been consumed. Now it’s yours. I’ll be back when we land in Jordan.

Q: Is there a difference between the Afghanistan and Iraq part of the trip and the rest of it?

A: Yes, and it’s an important difference to explain to our audience. Think of the Obama trip in two parts and, with unceasing apologies to Tolstoy, an easy split is War and Peace.
The “war” part is Afghanistan and Iraq. The “peace” part is the rest of it — Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and Great Britain. Obama will study war conditions in both countries and emphasize how much he’s “listening,” but has already said he won’t fundamentally change his core ideas about what to do in either war zone. The peace component will focus on what he hears and discusses in Jordan and Israel about talks with the Palestinians (with whom he will also meet, for details see earlier post). The peace part will also deal with relations with top European allies and a big speech on the future of the “Trans-Atlantic alliance” in Berlin, near but not at the Brandenburg Gate.

Q; Why isn’t the press with Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq?

A: Because that trip (the “war” part), is a congressional delegation trip (codel, for short). There are strict rules on media coverage for codels. Only the Senate Majority Leader or a full Committee Chairman can bring a traveling press corps on a codel trip. Obama is not a committee chairman. His traveling companions, Sens. Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, aren’t either.
That means no traveling press. US taxpayers finance codels and the military runs the flight schedule and procedures.

Q; What about the “peace” part of the trip.

A; That’s not a congressional delegation trip, but a campaign trip. By campaign trip I mean the travel is handled the same way every other campaign trip has been handled. I’m not saying it’s a political trip other than to say it’s outside of congressional delegation rules and regulations. The trip has obvious political implications and they are just as ripe in Afghanistan and Iraq and anywhere else. But the campaign travel regimen only applies to the non-Afghanistan and Iraq parts. Reporters traveling on those legs are part of a charter flight that its news organization pays for on a seat-by-seat basis, depending on how many bodies its sends. On this leg, the press corps will travel with Obama, go where he goes and will have access to his senior staff (to the degree they play ball).

Q; Who will cover Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq?

A: In-country reporters with agencies, networks and wire services.

Q: Can we report Obama’s going to Iraq?

A: Yes. But we can’t say when. There is tight operational security about all movements out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. This is a miltary air operation and they call the shots. For security reasons we can only say Obama’s heading to Iraq – no specifics on timing.

Q: Do we know who Obama will meet with on the “peace” part of the trip?

A: Yes. I have filed on my blog a list of world leaders and opposition party figures Obama will meet with on the trip.

Still in Chicago. Will board the bus to the airport in an hour. We depart at 8 p.m. CDT. Once I take off, I won’t be able to approve “comments.” Don’t be angry. I have to personally approve each comment. I’ll be flying for more than 14 hours, so it will take some time.

Barack Obama will soon arrive in Iraq. What awaits him, it seems, is at least as important as what he or John McCain or Nouri Al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, want to do in the future.

As I predicted in this space late Friday, Obama surrogates now assert that the difference between “timetables” and “time horizons” for troop withdrawals as so trivial that Obama was right about moving troops out — regardless of his opposition to the surge and his push for troop withdrawals last year. The Obama camp also appears to be adopting an attitude of Original Sin about the Iraq War. The U.S.-launched war in the land of the two rivers was the strategic original sin of the post-9/11 era and nothing arising from it can redeem that original fall from grace.

You can see this line of argumentation in today’s lively exchange on Fox News Sunday between Obama surrogate Evan Bayh, the Democratic senator from Indiana who chaired Hillary Clinton’s campaign in that hard-fought primary, and Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut Independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats but backs McCain to the hilt.

The McCain camp demands that Obama answer, while in Iraq, for his opposition to the troop surge. Lieberman said it would be virtually impossible for Obama to travel to Iraq and find the security that awaits him without the surge. Lieberman went so far as to say Obama was “prepared to lose in Iraq.” If Obama had prevailed and the surge been stopped, Lieberman said, Iraq could very easily be failed state with a vibrant Al Qaeda presence, massive sectarian unrest and untold humanitarian suffering due to violence, refugee outflows and diminished economic activity.

Bayh countered that the surge is less important that the war itself and the question now is who was right sooner about troop withdrawals. The two dots Obama wants voters to connect are: War and Withdrawal. The FIVE dots McCain wants them to connect are: War, Failure, Surge, Success, Withdrawal.

That, in essence, is the Iraq debate. Voter who care about the surge and consider it the central test of a commander-in-chief will side overwhelmingly with McCain. Those who see the war decision itself as the prism through which to evaluate a commander-in-chief will side with Obama, as they have lopsidedly since the campaign began. Those in between will have to decide for themselves if the war was worth fighting in the first place. For those who believe it wasn’t, I’m not sure the surge will prove decisive for them in McCain’s favor. For those who do believe some good can come out of the Iraq war, the surge and McCain’s advocacy of it, could prove pivotal.

Hence the intensity of today’s surge exchange. Here is the transcript. Happy reading.

WALLACE: As we discussed with Admiral Mullen, Iraqi prime minister Maliki seemed over the weekend to endorse Obama’s plan for pulling combat troops out of Iraq by mid 2010, within two years. Now he’s apparently backed off that.
But, Senator Lieberman, the Iraqis clearly want us out sooner rather than later, and they would like on a timetable. Why is Senator McCain resisting that?

LIEBERMAN: Well, we — Senator McCain and I and others — want us out of Iraq sooner rather than later, but we want us out in a way that does not compromise all the gains that American and Iraqi forces have made in Iraq, which Admiral Mullen spoke to.
And frankly, we want to stay there to a victory because we don’t want all those who have served in the American uniform there to have served or in some cases died in vain.
Remember this, Chris. We wouldn’t be having this discussion about how to get out unless the surge, which John McCain courageously fought for, taking on the president of his own party, popular opinion, risking his campaign, and which Senator Obama opposed, worked.
So I think that’s the good news. I think everybody — that is, Prime Minister Maliki, President Bush, people like John McCain and I — agree the sooner we’re out, the better. But it has to be based on conditions on the ground.
Senator Obama doesn’t seem to feel that way. It looked like he did a little bit after the primaries were over. But then he, pushed by MoveOn.org and others on the antiwar left of the Democratic Party, is back to a rigid time line. And that’s not wise.

WALLACE: Let me talk to Senator Bayh about that.
Admiral Mullen didn’t mention Obama, but he did say this idea of a timetable for getting out in two years is dangerous. Why not agree that you’re going to make any decisions based on conditions on the ground, Senator?

BAYH: Chris, I think it’s important to note that Barack Obama’s judgment about these issues has been excellent from the beginning, the kind of judgment you’d want in a commander in chief, and others are now beginning to adopt his positions.
We wouldn’t be discussing surges in Iraq or anything else if Barack had had his way. We wouldn’t have started that war to begin with.
He was right about Afghanistan. That’s the place from which we were attacked. He’s been calling for more troops there now for over a year. And John McCain, to his credit, has now come around and adopted Barack’s point of view on that.
He has been for, as you say, a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As we heard, Prime Minister Maliki has embraced a more definitive time line, whether it’s the 16 months or something else. But clearly, they want a more definitive time line.
And even President Bush now is coming up with a variety of euphemisms — aspirational goals, time horizons. I mean, it’s starting to sound pretty much like a time line to me.
So it’s common sense, Chris. Any important enterprise, certainly something as important as a war — you want to have a plan. And a plan has to have some idea of what it’s going to cost, what the adverse consequences are going to be and how long it’s going to take.
So 16 months seems to be a reasonable goal. Let’s work toward that. Let’s bring this to a conclusion in a responsible way and focus on Iraq (sic) where the focus should have been all along.

WALLACE: But, Senator Bayh, even the Washington Post criticized Obama this week for — and let’s put it up on the screen — his iron timetable, accusing him of foolish consistency and that he’s ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome.
And here’s an exchange between Obama and McCain this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: I’m really astonished that he should give a policy speech on Iraq and Afghanistan before he goes to find out the facts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Again, two questions, really, Senator Bayh. Why the, quote, “iron timetable” that the Washington Post talks about? And secondly, this issue — why announce your policy before you go to Iraq and talk to the generals and the Iraqis?

BAYH: A couple of things, Chris. First, General Petraeus was asked recently about whether a 16-month period was a reasonable period of time, and he said it would depend on a variety of factors. He didn’t say it was unreasonable.
We’ve been there — will have been — 16 months from when the next president is inaugurated, almost seven years. We’ve spent $700 billion. Just think of all the other things we could have done — finished Afghanistan, energy security for our country — with those amount of resources.
What’s really surprising is that John, a man I admire and respect, says that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruct in Iraq, knowing all the consequences that have been adverse in Afghanistan because of our fixation on Iraq, he would do this all over again. That’s what is really surprising.
So Barack thinks that 16 months from January is a reasonable period of time. Let’s go for it. Let’s see. Let’s try and bring this to a conclusion on that time frame. If there are difficulties, we’ll address them when they arise.

LIEBERMAN: Look, the fact is that if Barack Obama’s policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn’t go to Iraq today. It wouldn’t be safe. Barack Obama and John McCain saw the same difficulty in Iraq.
John McCain had the guts to argue against public opinion, to put his whole campaign on the line, because, as he says, he’d rather lose an election than lose in a war that he thinks is this important to the United States.
The reason I say Barack — if Barack Obama’s policy couldn’t — had been implemented — if Barack Obama’s policy in Iraq had been implemented, he couldn’t be in Iraq today is because he was prepared to accept retreat and defeat.
And that would mean today Al Qaida would be in charge of parts of Iraq. Iranian-backed extremists would be in charge of other parts of Iraq. There’d be civil war and maybe even genocide.
And the fact is that we are winning in Iraq today. And you know, you can’t choose, as Senator Obama seems to think, to lose in Iraq so you can win in Afghanistan.
The reality is if we lost in Iraq, which Obama was prepared to do, we would go to Afghanistan as losers. Instead, Al Qaida has its tail tucked between its legs as it’s exiting Iraq to go — to try to…

WALLACE: I’m going to…

BAYH: I have to respond to that. Barack Obama was not for losing in Iraq. Barack didn’t want the war to begin with.
John McCain opposed surging troops in Afghanistan until last week.

LIEBERMAN: Yeah, but what…

BAYH: Excuse me. Was John for losing in Afghanistan? I don’t think so.

LIEBERMAN: Of course not.

BAYH: And now you have Maliki, even President Bush, are moving toward Barack Obama’s position on this.

WALLACE: I want to…

BAYH: His judgment was right.

WALLACE: Gentlemen, I want to — we could continue this…

LIEBERMAN: Those questions — bottom line, no question that Barack Obama was prepared to lose in Iraq.

BAYH: That’s not true.

WALLACE: All right. All right.

LIEBERMAN: Forget what’s right or wrong…
That’s where the exchange ended, in a bit of a stalemate. This debate will surround all of the evaluations of Obama’s visit to Iraq: his, McCain’s and the country’s.

Hey gang. Still in Chicago, waiting for the Obama overseas charter.

Here’s the next of today’s important transcripts, this one from my colleague, Chris Wallace’s interview with Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, on Fox News Sunday. Again, I want you to see the entire interview so you can judge for yourself.

Key highlights:

Mullen said time horizons for troop withdrawals with the Iraqi government can and will work.

He said a fixed timetable for withdrawals would be dangerous because it could occur irrespective of security conditions. But when pressed to explain exactly what could go wrong under fixed timetables, Mullen offered almost no specifics.

Mullen says security has improved enough in Iraq that more combat troops could come home before Inauguration Day. He would not commit to a number of troops leaving Iraq. He did not reject bringing home as many as three combat brigades, but did say troop withdrawals of that size would require continued security improvements and can in no way be predicted.

Mullen said he worries about a U.S. or Israeli military strike against Iran “a lot” and said he’s fighting two wars now and doesn’t need a third.

Here is the full transcript. I’ve left the names Wallace and Mullen in capital letters because changing them to proper style takes a lot of time and I want to get this stuff out to you as quickly as I can.

WALLACE: President Bush and Iraqi prime minister Maliki announced Friday that they have set what they call a time horizon for the transition to Iraqi command and further withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Now, they are saying that these would be goals, not deadlines, but what’s your sense of how fast that transition might come?

MULLEN: Well, I think — I’m not yet able to put an exact time line on it per se. I think the strategic goals of having time horizons are ones that we all seek because eventually we would like to see U.S. forces draw down and eventually all come home.
And I think part of what I see going on is healthy negotiations for a burgeoning democracy, and I think these discussions are indicative of that.

WALLACE: Will this time horizon have a date, even if it’s just a goal, for when U.S. combat troops would be out and the Iraqi military would have control of their own security?

MULLEN: This right now doesn’t speak to either time lines or timetables, based on my understanding of where we are.

WALLACE: So what would the horizon say?

MULLEN: Well, I think it sends a signal that there is one, that eventually we do want to bring our troops back, and that — and right now that — with where we are, conditions are improving in Iraqi. Certainly, when I was there a week before last, that was indicative.
And if those conditions continue to improve, we should be in a position to start to bring our troops home.

WALLACE: Prime Minister Maliki was quoted in a German magazine this weekend saying he thinks that Senator Obama’s plan to pull all U.S. combat troops out within two years, by 2010, is — and let’s put it up on the screen — the right time frame for withdrawal.
His spokesman has now backed away from that a bit, so that any pullout is based on continuing progress on the ground. What do you think are the consequences if we set a time line for pulling all troops out within two years?

MULLEN: Well, my current mission under the current commander in chief is to give him advice and recommendations based on our progress there, and that’s exclusively based on conditions on the ground, and that’s the mission that I’ve got.
Should that mission change, and we get a new president, and should those conditions be conditions that get generated or required in order to advise a future president, I would do so accordingly.
Based on my time in and out of Iraq in recent months, I think the conditions-based assessments are the way to go and they’re very solid. We’re making progress, and we can move forward accordingly based on those conditions.

WALLACE: But I’m asking you in the absence — forget about Obama. Forget about the politics. If I were to say to you, “Let’s set a time line of getting all of our combat troops out within two years,” what do you think would be the consequences of setting that kind of a time line?

MULLEN: I think the consequences could be very dangerous in that regard. I’m convinced at this point in time that coming — making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important.
We’ve been able to do that. We’ve reduced five brigades in the last several months. And again, if conditions continue to improve, I would look to be able to make recommendations to President Bush in the fall to continue those reductions.

WALLACE: Why dangerous to set a timetable now for what’s going to happen over the next two years?

MULLEN: When I have discussions with commanders on the ground, basically — and I did a couple weeks ago — they are very, very adamant about continuing progress, about making decisions based on what’s actually happening in the battle space, and I just think that’s prudent.
That’s served us very well in — certainly, since the surge, which has been very successful, and I think will continue to serve us well based on the overall conditions that I see in Iraq right now.

WALLACE: And why? What would happen if you don’t do it as condition-based? What if you sit there and say, “Right now, timetable, two years, all combat troops out?” What’s the downside?

MULLEN: Well, it’s hard to say exactly what would happen. I’d worry about any kind of rapid movement out and creating instability where we have stability.
We’re engaged very much right now with the Iraqi people. The Iraqi leadership is starting to generate the kind of political progress that we need to make. The economy is starting to move in the right direction. So all those things are moving in the right direction.
And from the standpoint of moving forward, I think it’s a pretty good path right now.

WALLACE: Now, you, as we said, are just back from Iraq, and when you came back you said that security is so much better that you may well be able to recommend more troop cuts this fall.
Can you see more troops coming out of Iraq before President Bush leaves office?

MULLEN: If conditions on the ground continue to improve as they have, what I said the other day is what I believe, that I will — think I’ll be able to make recommendations for the president to withdraw more troops.
There’s a mechanical, physical challenge with respect to moving troops around. You can’t just do it overnight. So those decisions have to be taken — those facts are taken into consideration in terms of making those decisions, and we’re working through the details of that right now, and so I can’t tell you for sure whether we could get more troops there before the end of the year or not.

WALLACE: You mean get more troops out.

MULLEN: Get more troops out.

WALLACE: Assuming this current glide path, which is, you feel, an improving glide path, is it your sense it would be possible to get more troops out before the president leaves office on January 20th?

MULLEN: You’d have to go through the assumptions, but certainly there are assumptions which you could make which would make that possible.

WALLACE: There’s been talk about as many as three more combat brigades.

MULLEN: Again, I think that’s pretty — you have to look at the assumptions very carefully about that in terms of whether we could do something like that.

WALLACE: While we’re talking here, Senator Obama is either on his way or at least headed to Iraq. He opposed the troop surge, while Senator McCain was one of its earliest supporters.

Again, having said that, try to divorce it now from politics. You say you’re surprised at how much securityhas improved from when you came on your trip, that you were surprised that it’s so much better.

MULLEN: Sure.

WALLACE: What’s your best estimate of where we would be if there had been no troop surge, and instead of adding the troops over the last 18 months we’d been pulling them out?
MULLEN: Well, hard to — that’s a — actually, that’s a hypothetical that I would struggle really answering.

What I saw on this trip was — I had a certain mindset about improved security because I certainly knew it had.
And relative to where I thought it was, in fact, it was better, much better, than I had anticipated. And that has to do with walking around Sadr City and being in the Jamilla Market, which is a central market in Iraq, walking through Mosul, downtown Mosul, where a few weeks ago we couldn’t go, what’s happened in Basra, how we’ve made improvements there in terms of security, and also the confidence that the Iraqi security forces have, the Iraqi leadership has right now in terms of taking control of their own destiny.
And so all of those things came together for me to sort of culminate in an assessment that it was much better than I had anticipated.

WALLACE: Do you think that could have happened without the surge?

MULLEN: No, I don’t think it could have.

WALLACE: Let’s turn to Afghanistan. General Petraeus, still the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq but headed on to become central commander, says that Al Qaida may no longer consider Iraq the front line in the war on terror and may, in fact, be shifting some of its foreign fighters from Iraq to Afghanistan. Do you see that shift?

MULLEN: I think he also said that there’s no firm evidence of that yet. In my trip there week before last, certainly the whole issue of the FATA and the safe havens for foreign fighters, for Al Qaida, for Taliban and the insurgents that are now freely — much more freely able to come across the borders — a big challenge for all of us.

And it’s having an impact on our ability to move forward in Afghanistan. The concern, certainly, is that safehaven exists and that we — and when I say we, I think the international community…

WALLACE: We’re talking about the safe haven between the Afghan- Pakistan border.

MULLEN: Right. Actually, it is a safe haven in Pakistan…

WALLACE: In Pakistan.

MULLEN: … which is where these foreign fighters — some additional foreign fighters have shown up — not necessarily Al Qaida.
But what I do see in that part, particularly in the FATA in Pakistan, is a joining, a syndication, of various extremists and terrorist groups which provides for a much more intense threat, internal to Pakistan as well as the ability to flow — greater freedom to flow forces across that porous border.

WALLACE: Given what I’m hearing here and what I’ve heard in your statements since you returned, is it fair tosay that we’re now winning the war in Iraq and losing the war in Afghanistan?

MULLEN: I think we’ve made a lot of progress in Iraq, and certainly every indication is that we’re proceeding in the right direction. I would not say in any way, shape or form that we’re losing in Afghanistan. In fact…

WALLACE: But we can’t say we’re proceeding in the right direction.

MULLEN: The attacks, actually, that have been publicized recently — there was one, obviously, at Wanat which was a very serious attack — it was a very sophisticated attack, and we lost nine soldiers there, and my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of those who sacrificed so much there and really throughout these wars.
But when I visit with the commander up in Korengal Valley just in the same vicinity — I was there with him a couple of months ago. They’ve actually made progress and moved into small villages further in the valley.
When I visited with the Marines down south, which are an additive to our troops in Afghanistan, they’ve taken territory and held it and made a difference in ways that are very significant.
So I would say the progress is mixed there, but I am not concerned at all at this point that we’re losing in Afghanistan.

WALLACE: Finally, let’s turn to Iran. The news out of the nuclear talks in Geneva yesterday is that the Iranians refuse to say whether or not they will suspend their nuclear program, and the U.S. and our allies have giventhem two more weeks. Your reaction.

MULLEN: I’m encouraged by the talks. A few weeks ago I wouldn’t have thought those were possible. And I believe that the international community needs to continue to bring pressure on Iran both economically, financially, diplomatically, politically, to continue to bring them to a point where we can all deal with this issue of nuclear weapons.
I fundamentally believe that they’re on a path to achieve nuclear weapons some time in the future. I think that’s a very destabilizing possibility in that part of the world. I don’t need — we don’t need any more instability in that part of the world.
So I was encouraged. I will obviously watch what happens in the next two weeks to see if they come further or if they walk away.

WALLACE: I want to ask you two questions about Iran. How do you weigh as a military man, as the top military man, the downside risk if either the U.S. or Israel were to militarily strike Iran in terms of blowback from Iran and its allies in the region, increased turmoil in that area, increased turmoil in the oil market?

MULLEN: I think it would be significant. I worry about it a lot. I’ve said when I’ve been asked this before right now I’m fighting two wars, and I don’t need a third one to — I would be concerned — not that I couldn’t — not that we don’t have the reserve to do it in the United States. We do.
But I worry about the instability in that part of the world and, in fact, the possible unintended consequences of a strike like that and, in fact, having an impact throughout the region that would be difficult to both predict exactly what it would be and then the actions that we would have to take to contain it.

WALLACE: On the other hand, how do you weigh the downside risk of doing nothing?

MULLEN: There is significant concern with that as well. I mean, it’s a very, very tough problem. But that’s where I think this international community — and the pressure has got to continue to be brought specifically on Iran to not proceed in this regard.
And again, I believe they’re headed in that direction.

WALLACE: Headed in the direction…

MULLEN: Headed in the direction of building nuclear weapons and having them in their arsenal, and that needs to — we need to figure out a way to ensure that that doesn’t happen.

WALLACE: Admiral Mullen, we want to thank you. Thanks so much for coming in, and please come back, sir.

MULLEN: Thank you, Chris. It was good to be with you.

This is going to be a busy week on the Obama overseas trip. I’m in Chicago waiting for the bus to take us to Midway Airport and the charter that will fly us to meet with Obama in Jordan.

I want you to think of this blog as a clearing house all week of information on Obama’s trip. I will post as often as I can with my observations, reporting and interaction with Obama and his senior staff. I will also try to provide you transcripts of interviews along the way and any impressions I may have of them. As you already know, lots of reporters are on this trip and I want to give you as much access as I have to the totality of the interviews Obama does, not just the one or two answers you may hear on the radio or see on TV.

CBS News correspondent Lara Logan interviewed Obama in Kabul, Afghanistan, today and it aired on CBS’ Face the Nation. Logan made news, first in asking Obama if he ever had any doubts about his foreign policy experience. Obama, as this post’s headline says, gave a one word answer that may inspire as many as it scares: “Never.”

Logan also dug deep on Obama’s publicized declaration on Aug. 1, 2007, in a significant speech on a new policy toward the war in Afghanistan, that if the U.S. possessed actionable intelligence on Usama bin Laden’s exact location and the Pakistan government refused to attack to capture or kill, the U.S. would act unilaterally. That comment gave a new-found muscularity to Obama’s attitudes about how to use military force to win the war on terror. It also drew criticism from some in the Bush administration and from John McCain and others. In the passage of time that criticism has been boiled down to mean Obama was wrong to say the U.S. would act unilaterally. In fact, the criticism was principally that no U.S. president or candidate for the presidency should say such things publicly because they disrespect Pakistani sovereignty and complicate internal discussions on a wide-array of terrorism related issues.

Logan forced Obama to concede that was he was proposing — unilateral military action to capture or kill bin Laden based on actionable U.S. intelligence — was not a departure from current Bush policy. That may not seem like much of a development, but it strikes me as something where Obama was forced to admit he had in public created a false premise from which to attack the president and, by extension, anyone who criticized this open declaration of unilateral military action in a foreign country. Now, this is no way undermines Obama’s criticism that the war in Afghanistan has suffered as a result of the invasion of Iraq. But it may give ammunition to Obama critics who say his lack of experience leads him to make say things a potential U.S. president ought not to say, especially when what his saying doesn’t plow new policy ground but may make the ground in which the current policy exists harder to plow.

Readers might also find interesting Obama’s answer and what “victory” will look like in Afghanistan. Some may find the definition vague, others appropriately broad because the NATO-led effort has lost so much ground. Obama also calls for fresh action to prepare for additional troop deployments now, a sign that he has fully internalized the complex nature of moving combat forces and the accompanying support troops from one battlefield to another. Obama also said it would be up to Pakistan to deal with Al Qaeda training camps in its borders, conceding that the only way the U.S. could act unilaterally is if it knew where bin Laden was and could either capture him or kill with a very high level of certainty. This also shows an awareness of the current political and tactical difficulties in dealing with Al Qaeda in Pakistan. As long as the Pakistan government is the chief beat cop in the no-man’s land where bin Laden and associates hide out, it will be very difficult to shut down the training camps Much has been made this week of Bush following Obama on troop withdrawal timetables. It seems today Obama, while not necessarily “following” Bush in dealing with UBL and Al Qaeda training camps in Pakistan, was openly conceding the military options in this theater are limited….maddeningly limited.

Here is the full transcript of Logan’s interview with Obama. It starts with what we call in television a cold open, wherein Obama starts speaking without the benefit of the first question being asked (apologies to any who find the cold open tutorial insulting).

Obama: I believe U.S. troop levels need to increase. And I for at least a year now have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three. I think it’s very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities.
But military alone is not going to be enough. The Afghan government needs to do more, but we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front on our battle against terrorism.

Logan: Why does it have to be the central front? What is — what is so critical to U.S. interests here?

Obama: This is where they can plan attacks. They have sanctuary here. They are gathering huge amounts of money as a consequence of the drug trade in the region. And so, that global network is centered in this area.
And I think one of the biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq.
And despite what the Bush administration has argued, I don’t think there’s any doubt that we were distracted from our efforts not only to hunt down Al Qaida and the Taliban, but also to rebuild this country so that people have confidence that we were here to stay over the long haul, that we were going to rebuild roads, provide electricity, improve the quality of life for people.
And now we have a chance, I think, to correct some of those errors. There’s starting to be a growing consensus that it’s time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, deploy them here in Afghanistan, and I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now is the time for us to do it.
I think it’s important for us to begin planning for those brigades now. If we wait until the next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on the ground here in Afghanistan, and I think that would be a mistake. I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we have got to start doing something now.
The United States has to take a regional approach to the problem. Just as we can’t be myopic and focus only on Iraq, we also can’t think that we can solve the security problems here in Afghanistan without engaging the Pakistan government.

Logan: How do you compel Pakistan to act?

Obama: Well, you know, I think that the U.S. government provides an awful lot of aid to Pakistan, provides a lot of military support to Pakistan. And to send a clear message to Pakistan that this is important, to them as well as to us, that I think — that message has not been sent.

Logan: Under what circumstances would you authorize unilateral U.S. action against targets inside that tribal areas?

Obama: Well, what I’ve said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value Al Qaida targets and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should. Now, my hope is that it doesn’t come to that, that in fact, the Pakistani government would recognize that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights, that we should fire or we should capture and (inaudible)…

Logan: Isn’t that the case now? I mean, do you really think that if the U.S. forces had Osama bin Laden in their sights and the Pakistanis said no, that they wouldn’t fire or wouldn’t go after him?

Obama: I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, well, you know, you shouldn’t go around saying that. But I don’t think there’s any doubt that that should be our policy, and will continue to be our policy.

Logan: But it is the current policy.

Obama: I believe it is the current policy.

Logan: So there’s no change then.

Obama: I don’t think there is going to be a change there. I think that in order for us to be successful, it’s not going to be enough just to engage in the occasional shot fired. We’ve got training camps that are growing and multiplying…

Logan: Would you take out all those training camps?

Obama: Well, I think that what we’d like to see is the Pakistani government take out those training camps.

Logan: And if they won’t?

Obama: Well, I think that we’ve got to work with them so they will.

Logan: But would you consider unilateral U.S. action?

Obama: You know, I will push Pakistan very hard to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it’s absolutely vital to the security interests of both the United States and Pakistan.

Logan: Because you do have a situation seven years on into this war where Osama bin Laden and all hislieutenants and all the leaders of the Taliban, they’re still there. And they’re inside Pakistan.

Obama: Right. It’s a huge problem. And first of all, if we hadn’t taken our eye off the ball, we might have caught them before they got into Pakistan and were able to reconstitute themselves.
So we made a strategic error, and it’s one that we’re going to pay for, and unfortunately the people of Afghanistan have paid for as well.
But we now have an opportunity to correct that problem. One of the — if you look at what’s happening right now, in Iraq Prime Minister Maliki has indicated he wants a timetable for withdrawal. That is the view of the vast majority of Iraqis as well. We’ve seen a quelling of the violence. We haven’t seen as much political progress as needs to be made, but we’re starting to see some efforts on the part of various factions to deal with some of the issues that are out there.

Logan: Token efforts at best, though, wouldn’t you say?

Obama: They are token efforts at best, but if we have a timetable and they suddenly see an urgency behind the fact that the American troops are going to be leaving and that they need to get their act together, then this is the perfect moment for us to say we are going to shift our resources, we’re going to get a couple of more brigades here into Afghanistan, we’re going to — and it’s not just brigades. We’re also going to be upping our financial aid to Afghanistan. We’re going to be willing to increase our foreign aid to Pakistan. In exchange, we’re going to expect that Pakistan takes much more seriously going after Al Qaida and Taliban-based camps on their side of the borders.

Logan: What would be mission accomplished for you in Afghanistan?

Obama: Well, mission accomplished would be that we have stabilized Afghanistan, that the Afghan people are experiencing raising — rising standards of living, that we have made sure that we are disabling Al Qaida and the Taliban so that they can no longer attack Afghanistan, they can no longer engage in attacks against targets in Pakistan, and they can’t target the United States or its allies.

Logan: So losing is not an option.

Obama: Losing is not an option when it comes to Al Qaida, and it never has been. And that’s why the fact that we engaged in a war of choice when we were not yet finished with that task was such a mistake.

Logan: Do you believe the war on terror can be won if Osama bin Laden is still alive and if he’s still out there?

Obama: I think there would be enormous symbolic value in us capturing or killing bin Laden, because I think he’s still a rallying point for Islamic extremists. But I don’t think that by itself is sufficient. I think that we are going to have to be vigilant in dismantling these terrorist networks.
Logan: OK, last question. There is a perception that you lack experience in world affairs.

Obama: Right.

Logan: Is this trip partly aimed at overcoming that perception that, you know, there is doubt among some Americans that you could lead a country at war as commander in chief from day one?

Obama: You know, the interesting thing is that the people who are very experienced in foreign affairs I don’t think have those doubts. The troops that I’ve been meeting with over the last several days, they don’t seem to have those doubts.
So the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.
And it’s important for me to have a relationship with them early, that I start listening to them now, getting a sense of what their interests and concerns are.
Because one of the shifts in foreign policy that I want to execute as president is giving the world a clear message that America intends to continue to show leadership but our style of leadership is going to be less unilateral, that we’re going to see our role as building partnerships around the world that are of mutual interest to the parties involved.
And I think this gives me a head start in that process.

Logan: Do you have any doubts?

Obama: Never.