Here’s a provocative idea from a provocative guy: Why not hold the next Democratic and Republican presidential debates in Baghdad? The idea, from Ralph Peters, an author and former military intelligence analyst who writes a column for the New York Post, grows out of his sense that there is a disconnect between what presidential candidates and American lawmakers see from Iraq and what really is going on. In his words, “To a military professional, the tactical progress made in Iraq over the last few months is impressive. To a member of Congress, it’s an annoyance.”

Grappling with Iraq, of course, is a daily reality for any politician facing the electorate in 2008, whether presidential or congressional. The Democratic debate held Tuesday – the so-called “CNN/YouTube” debate featured a good deal of back and forth on the issue. None of it, by and large, moved any of these candidates past previously stated positions, as tracked by our Iraq Issue Tracker.

For those like Peters who still view Iraq as a mission rather than a lost cause, there was even less to pick through. Max Boot, CFR’s senior military analyst, recently noted in Commentary’s blog that polling shows some small uptick in optimism among the general public. Both he and the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer have been at pains to underscore the tactical progress Peters refers to in his column.

Would a debate in the Green Zone change minds? Hard to say, really. But it certainly would give every candidate a first hand look at the “reality” of U.S. commanders in Iraq. However one feels about the war, that can’t be a bad thing.