What an astonishing turn the campaign has taken in respect of the Battle of Iraq. It started out as something of a plebiscite on the war itself only to evolve — one can say on the basis of Friday’s debate — into an argument in which it can be tricky to discover where Senators Obama and McCain differ in any significant way on Iraq save a dispute about which side of the debate they were on five years ago, when Mr. Obama represents he was against the war, although not in a position of having to have an opinion, and Mr. McCain was for it.

In respect of Iraq, both candidates say they are committed to the withdrawal of troops so long as it consolidates the gains made on the ground. At the same time, both candidates favor sending more troops to Afghanistan, which both campaigns say is in a perilous state. If Governor Palin’s remarks at Philadelphia are any indication, both Messrs. Obama and McCain also support President Bush’s new policy of military raids into the Pakistani frontier where Osama bin Laden is said to be holed up with the rest of Al Qaeda’s leadership.

What a long way from the debates between the two parties only a year ago. Back then, it was Mr. McCain and the Republicans who bothered to listen and take seriously the cautious but optimistic assessments from Iraq of General Petraeus. Senator Clinton issued her famous insult about the “willing suspension of disbelief.” The Democrats sponsored legislation mandating a fixed timetable for withdrawal. Mr. Obama’s call for retreat was said to be a big reason he won his party’s primary.

Yet when Mr. McCain, at the debate Friday, accused Mr. Obama of not acknowledging that “we are winning in Iraq.” Mr. Obama’s response was, “not true.” He’s been full of praise for General Petraeus, for our troops, for the progress made in the surge, and the new bipartisan consensus extends to Afghanistan as well. Little more than a year ago, Mr. McCain and his allies in the Republican Party accused Mr. Obama of planning to attack an ally in Pakistan.

That was after the junior senator of Illinois gave a war on terrorism speech where he pledged to attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan if America had the correct intelligence and the Pakistani military would not move against such targets. Today that is exactly America’s policy in the federal administered tribal areas. Mr. McCain concedes the point implicitly but says he won’t discuss such sensitive diplomacy in a campaign.

And feature their exchange on Iran. Mr. Obama said that he favors low level contact with the Mullahs to explore the prospect of a deal. So does Mr. McCain. Secretary of State Kissinger, a Republican, is now suggesting secretary of state level contacts between Washington and Tehran. When quizzed about Mr. Kissinger’s suggestion, the Arizona lawmaker insisted, “I’ve always encouraged them.”

The new consensus on foreign affairs in some ways is a welcome development. It is of course possible that the real Mr. Obama, who railed against the Iraq war during the primaries, will emerge if he wins the White House. But we suspect that what we are seeing, amid the tumult of the campaign, is a recognition that this war will be with us for some time to come. Mr. McCain has shirked some of the characteristics of the hawk, touting recently his opposition to President Reagan’s decision to send Marines to Lebanon. Mr. Obama is baring his teeth when it comes to Afghanistan. Both men are moving closer to the policies of the president one of them will replace. As the French say, plus ça change.