Whether or not one believes the 'surge' of U.S. forces in Iraq has actually worked, Sen. John McCain has gotten a lot of mileage, certainly with the press, for his early support of the tactic. He would have everyone believe that his position was based on his superior knowledge of foreign policy and military tactics. I have a contrarian view. What experience was McCain drawing on to reach his position? Let me suggest the following:.That John McCain, coming from a proud family tradition of military service in support of victorious causes, and suffering more than most can imagine in the failed Viet Nam war, would view a similar outcome in Iraq as completely unacceptable. He would naturally be led to promote a strategy that could lead to victory (McCain repeatedly talks about victory in Iraq as being necessary, and belittles Sen. Obama's call for a withdrawal as a surrender - a bitter pill to have to swallow twice). Unfortunately, we'll never know whether McCain's stance on the surge was based on shrewd analysis of the situation on the ground (as he would have us believe) or a gut reaction to avoid the humiliation America came out of Viet Nam with. In any event Obama has generally shown better judgment and insight than McCain in his approaches to Iraq, Iran, al Qaida and Afghanistan/Pakistan.