Obama, Petraeus and Iraq

The Washington Post has the full text of Senator Obama's exchange with General Petreaus. There's some interesting comments here but I think ultimately they agreed on the following:

OBAMA:

If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an Al Qaida base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe, and that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has been trying to drive at, and we haven't been able to get as clear of an answer as we would like.

CROCKER: ...

I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry forward its further development without a major commitment of U.S. forces, with still a lot of problems out there but where they and we would have a fair certitude that, again, they can drive it forward themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slip away from them again, then, clearly, our profile, our presence diminishes markedly.

But that's not where we are now.

That seems like they agree on the ultimate conditions and the ultimate goal but phrase it slightly differently. The key to Sen. Obama's difference in opinion is as follows, "I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind -- and this is where we disagree -- includes a timetable for withdrawal." I'll take that to mean a hard date for withdrawal. This presents to me two possible endpoints for the solution:

1) We're in it to stay until Iraq is secure enough to manage itself.
2) It is too costly in both dollars and lives to remain there beyond a particular date despite what the condition is.

Sen. Obama is taking the middle ground between these two points and it doesn't quite add up. He was quick to point out in the questioning that he felt "the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder" and that seems to play into this dual endgame - wanting to finish the job but leave at a predefined date regardless of the condition on the ground.
I'd like a clearer answer as to what he feels considering the two positions. Honestly, if he went all in on one answer or the other I'd have a lot more respect for him. I feel Sen. McCain has embraced the first view wholeheartedly and Rep. Paul has embraced the second and both men I can understand their decisions and reasoning behind it. I'd love to hear some more discussion on this topic from Sen. Obama or members of his camp that are willing to provide me with links.