WASHINGTON — The presidential candidate who promises to tell his generals to end the Iraq war is now saying that a modest victory is achievable in the country, where the government left behind stops sectarian killing and does not provide a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

The mere mention of an Iraq victory yesterday in a major national security speech by Senator Obama cuts against the rhetoric of many of the Democratic party’s leaders, such as Senate Majority Leader Reid, who more than a year ago said the Iraq war was lost. At the same time, Mr. Obama reiterated his primary pledge to withdraw combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

In a speech laying out his foreign policy priorities if he is to win the job as commander and chief, Mr. Obama said, “At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every Al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave — General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April,” he said.

In a colloquy with Ambassador Crocker last March at hearings at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Obama talked about “a messy, sloppy status quo,” where “there is not huge outbreaks of violence, there is still corruption but the country is struggling along, but it’s not a threat to its neighbors and its not an Al Qaeda base.”

For Mr. Obama, that status quo is close to what he is now calling “victory.” In his speech yesterday, he said, “True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future — a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the Al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis to stand up.”

The Democratic Party’s candidate yesterday stuck to his position from the primaries — a fixed 16 month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq — that he appeared earlier this month to be refining when he announced he would visit with commanders on the ground in Iraq. Senator McCain responded to the speech by focusing on what he depicted as his rival’s defeatism.

“He will tell you we can’t win in Afghanistan without losing in Iraq. In fact, he has it exactly backwards,” Mr. McCain said.

Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, yesterday announced his plans for a military surge in Afghanistan that would include three extra combat brigades to augment the more than 30,000 American forces on the ground in the country. Mr. Obama has said he would like to send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan, whose mountainous border with Pakistan comprises part of Al Qaeda’s current base of operations.

Senator Lieberman, an independent Democrat who was targeted by his party’s left wing in a primary in 2006 and has endorsed Mr. McCain, hit the Democratic nominee hard yesterday. Mr. Lieberman asked, “Was it tough and principled when Senator Obama said he would be open to changing his plan for Iraq after going there and talking to General Petraeus — only to change that position a few hours later after being heatedly criticized by organizations like MoveOn.org?”

The Obama plan for Iraq allows for a residual force to stay in the country to fight Al Qaeda, protect the American embassy and train the country’s military and security forces. Mr. Obama has declined to say how large that force would be. Mr. Obama has also pointed out Prime Minister al-Maliki has discussed including a timetable for troop withdrawals in the status of forces agreement negotiations that appear to have been delayed. The next president will likely forge an agreement on America’s troop presence in Iraq with the elected Iraqi government.