We need to stop talking about Iraq. It's not really an issue in this presidential campaign. We need to talk about everything but Iraq. Why? Because Republicans know that they have to take that issue off the table if they have prayer in hell of winning this fall.

But I'd like to talk about someone who took unilateral military action with virtually no strategic planning, using way too few troops resulting in an embarrassing failure. Not George Bush (fooled you). I'm talking about Iraqi Prime Minister, Maliki who planned (if I can loosely use that word) a failed assault on the Shi'ite militia in Basra late last month which left Sadr more secure in his position of power than before.

Maliki is like Bush's twin; arrogant, divisive and none too smart. His little romp down in southern Iraq has absolutely weakened him and, by association, weakened the US. Of course, George Bush praised him. After all, it's what he would have done.

The most amazing thing is that while Bush is calling it a "defining moment in the history of a free Iraq" GOP presidential nominee John McCain seems to be unaware of what is happening.

So, was it really a debacle? Consider this: There were huge casualties. American and British forces and air power had to come to the rescue. About 1000 Iraqi soldiers either defected or just went home in the midst of the fight. And Mr Maliki's boys sought a cease fire.

By Bush standards, that was a victory.

Everyone is discussing whether or not Obama has the wherewithal to operate on the big stage, whether Hillary is "more experienced." My friend Monty wants to put the Iraq War on the back burner and talk about the economy and free trade and probably gay marriage.

But what I (and millions of Americans) want to know, with George Bush on the way out, is how does McCain - Mr Experience himself - see the war?

I'll tell you how he sees it - through rose colored glasses.

McCain says "the surge is working," but besides break in the violence - which only brings us back to the 2005 levels- there is virtually no other (political) progress, which was the stated goal of the surge.

In 2003 McCain said the war would be "brief" and paid for by Iraqi oil revenues.

In the 1990's he championed huge funding by the State Department for Ahmad Chalabi (who the CIA had already labeled as "untrustworthy"). Is it a coincidence that there is a close relationship between McCain's top strategist and former lobbyist, Charles Black and Mr Chalabi?

But, let's jump ahead to Basra last month. McCain told Joe Klein of Time in January that it was "not a problem"; last month he told John King of CNN that Sadr's "influence has been on the wane for a long time." He actually said "Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the cease-fire. It wasn't Malaki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a cease-fire." Hey, at least he was right about the last part - since it was Maliki who asked for the cease fire.

Those observations could be called the small picture, the tactical picture. So, how does McCain do on the strategic, big picture? First of all, he keeps referring to Iraq as the central front on the war on Al Qaeda, which we all know wasn't even a player in the Basra battle, which was a Shi'ite vs. Shi'ite war. The actual front line against AQ is Pakistan and Afghanistan, from which we pulled our troops so they could get fight Bush's war of choice in Iraq, but that's another story.

McCain talks about Maliki's "democracy" in Iraq as a defense against Iran. But Maliki's political coalition and the militias are closer to Iran than the Sadrists. The cease fire that was brokered in Basra was done by not only in Iran, but by a general that is on the State Department's terrorist list - the commander of the Quds force in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

Read that again: The cease fire that was brokered in Basra was done by not only in Iran, but by a general that is on the State Department's terrorist list - the commander of the Quds force in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

So, Iran and Sadr are victorious. And John McCain can't figure out who is fighting whom and who we should trust and what is success.

We will end 2008 with more troops than we had there when the surge began.

Even Petraeus acknowledges that there hasn't been "significant progress" on political reconciliation - the stated goal of the surge.

Maliki's disastrous move against Sadr - done without consulting Iraq's "democratically elected Parliament" - was an attempt to use force, rather than wait for the October provincial elections, to take out his opponent.

While oil production sometimes reaches prewar levels, a third or more of the oil is siphoned off to the black market, where it finances the insurgency.

The projected date for turning over security operations to Iraqi forces has gone from the end of 2006 (set by Iraqi officials), to the end of 2007 and July 2008 (by our own Defense Dept.), to being omitted from the latest Pentagon report.

"We're succeeding," McCain said during is last trip to Iraq. "I don't care what anybody says." Once again, he is right - he doesn't care what anybody says, just like George Bush.

The biggest difference between McCain and the Democratic candidates? While they want to find a way out (which won't be easy), McCain thinks we should stay indefinitely and that anyone who disagrees isn't a "patriot."

I suppose all 70% of us Americans who disagree are "unpatriotic" by McCain's standards.

Or maybe we're just smarter than him.

So, yeah, I want to talk about Iraq. Damn right I want to talk about Iraq.

Read the rest of my opinions on www.politicaldoodle.com