Here's a link to a Time magazine opinion piece that is making basically the same point I was trying to make.

McCain's Foreign Policy Frustration - TIME

McCain is being left behind by events, and it makes him look out of touch and not flexible in the face of changing situations around the world. Bush makes two shifts in policy, sending diplomats to speak with the Iranians and speaking about a "time horizon" in Iraq, but McCain hasn't shifted his policy too.

Foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's strength, but events are not turing his way, and he's not adapting as they change. He looks inflexible.

The article makes another point which is interesting. It says basically Obama and McCain both have points about Iraq, but Obama's are more important than McCains. Obama's points are strategic in nature, while McCain's are tactical.

Obama had been right about the war in the first place. It was a disastrous idea, a phenomenal waste of lives and American credibility that diverted focus from our real enemy, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And Obama was right about the war now: the progress in Iraq was enabling a quicker withdrawal ?? a plan already hinted at by Bush.

And Obama was right about the future: the Iraqis don't want long-term U.S. bases on their territory, a McCain keystone and the source of his infamous comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years.

McCain's piece of the truth was tactical: he was right about the surge and right about the brilliance of David Petraeus' battle plan, which had helped quiet down Iraq.
If McCain loses his foreign policy advantage over Obama, he's got nothing.