Brilliant move by the McCain campaign today, as he says he would like to bring the troops home sooner than 16 months, if conditions permit.

This just points to the fallacy of a fixed timetable, as if it is the only way to get troops home; as if achieving victory and then moving out according to conditions on the ground is not a viable, not-to-mention better option.

I’m not so sure that would be so wise to continue withdrawing troops. I don’t think Obama would either. What’s the point of a fixed timetable for withdrawal with no regard for the security situation at any given time?

Question: “What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?”

McCain’s Answer: “Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”

“We are hoping that in 2010 that combat troops will withdraw from Iraq,” al-Dabbagh told reporters, noting that any withdrawal plan was subject to change if the level of violence kicks up again.

Note the selective tight clip of the video to delete the context.

But partisans hear what partisans want to hear. Iraq is playing its own game, not ours, not Obama’s, not McCain’s. (To my mind that’s a good thing, if somewhat annoying in the silly season of domestic elections.)

Expect further “refinement” of Obama’s “plan,” and ask yourself whom is pulling whose strings here.

I just hope MCain figures it out in the next 24 hours and does not blow this opportunity to get on the same side with most of the American people. He could turn this election around right now by embracing Maliki’s statements.