This is a good piece written by Cillizza of the Washington Post, I broke it down because not many watched all the candidates pop thier chops.

In dueling speeches today, Barack Obama and John McCain offered contrasting visions for the future of American foreign policy. But, both men also made clear that Afghanistan is a primary front in the war on terror and a battle that must be taken on and won.

How the two men arrived at that similar conclusion, however, is vastly different.

For Obama, the battle in Afghanistan is — and always has been — the key component of the war on terror; the war in Iraq was simply a distraction from what always should have been the major thrust of the American military post-Sept. 11.

In his speech today, Obama laid out a five-point plan to make America safer, the second point of which is “finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.” Obama added that there are currently five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan and “we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq.”

For McCain, the Iraq war is a key part of the larger war on terror and the recent successes on the ground in the country — as a result of the surge — provide a blueprint for how to win the war in Afghanistan

McCain argued that simply putting more troops into Afghanistan (Obama has promised to move two combat brigades into the country if and when he is elected president) won’t solve the problem. What is required, according to McCain is a streamlined military command and a comprehensive plan that seeks not just to win by military means, but also by convincing average citizens of the need for change.

Obama must show voters that he is strong and right when it comes to foreign policy; that while he opposed the war in Iraq, he is not the dove-ish Democrat that Republicans have caricatured successfully in recent campaigns. (The Post/ABC survey shows he was work to do on that front; just 48 percent of voters believe Obama would be a good commander-in-chief while 72 percent said the same of McCain.)

McCain’s case is different. He must find a way to turn his advocacy for the surge in Iraq into a net positive — a signal of his good judgment when it comes to the way the U.S. military should conduct itself in Afghanistan. McCain knows that dwelling on Iraq is a political loser but he and his campaign believe that if they can use the success of the surge to pivot to Afghanistan and, in doing so, raise questions about Obama’s readiness for office, they might be able to win that fight politically.