Many of my peers are big fans of Sen. Barack Obama. And that’s understandable. He’s a fresh, invigorating force in American presidential politics. He’s an inspirational figure. His calls for unity and healing, both racial and political, have excited Democrats and Republicans alike.

He has the momentum, or so it seems.

After all, Obama has strongly opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. He wants to get the troops out of there as soon as possible. In his words, from his campaign site,

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq …

Obama also opposed the so-called “Surge:”

The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006.

But that might not be as popular a position as it once was, at least not beyond his progressive base. As David Paul Kuhn from politico.com relates:

American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.

According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans - a slim majority - now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.

The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.

Regardless of your political persuasion, it’s clear that this is great news for Sen. John McCain, that crusty old Vietnam War veteran who holds the opposite position from Obama, having vowed repeatedly to “not end, but win” the conflict in Iraq.

And this isn’t an opportunistic policy maneuver. McCain can argue that he’s supported the war from the start, and might be able to present himself as one of the architects of the Surge. Back in April 2007, when his campaign was just starting the free fall that reached its nadir that summer, he defended the war in this Washington Post story:

Dismissing public opinion polls as offering nothing but "temporary favor" to the war's opponents, McCain directly confronted the biggest obstacle to his White House ambitions: his unyielding support of a war that more than two-thirds of the country has turned against.
 
"I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. I sympathize with the fatigue of the American people," he told cadets at the Virginia Military Institute. "But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and a country. It is the right road. It is necessary and just."

And regardless of whether or not the Surge is actually working, the public at least seems to believe it is, or at least a small majority does. This is decidedly to McCain’s advantage, and might give him the edge in his appeal to the moderate American middle and independent voters, the two groups that will hand the election to either Obama or McCain this fall (assuming that Clinton doesn’t get the nomination and turn this into a Karl Rove your-base-versus-mine contest reminiscent of 2004).

If events on the ground in Iraq continue to result in fairly good news, especially after the top American commander there, General David Petraeus, testifies to Congress early next month, then McCain could be in a stronger position on this particular issue as the general election looms ever closer.

Of course, this is a huge “if,” as the tide could still turn either way. But if the situation in Iraq does improve, even marginally, then perhaps the most ironic aspect of this year’s election could be that Iraq might help the Republicans in their bid to retain the White House.