Obama Advisor: 60,000 Troops Should Stay In Iraq Through 2010

New York Sun:

A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that America keep between 60,000 and 80,000 troops in Iraq as of late 2010, a plan at odds with the public pledge of the Illinois senator to withdraw combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In "Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement," Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government "the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."

Read the whole story: New York Sun

Comments

[ErikW65]

Fact: Sen. Obama's pledge is to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months from when he takes office. That date is May 20, 2010.

Fact: Mr. Kahl, the advisor in question, wrote that he would recommend that we keep a residual force in Iraq until the end of 2010.

I don't find fault with the New York Sun's assessment that Mr. Kahl's recommendation is "at odds" with Obama's pledge, but, just because an advisor recomends that Obama, in effect, break his pledge, it still doesn't mean that Obama has in fact, broken his pledge, or that he plans to do so. It just means he has advisors who feel free to state their honest opinions, even if they are at odds with their candidate's stated positions. Actually, that's what I want, a president who will listen to opinions that are different from his or her own. (And by the way, Mr. Kahl qualified his recommendation: "...although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground.")
The other alternative is a president surrounded by a group of sycophantic yes-people. No thanks!

[ErikW65]

Now let's talk about the other candidates' advisors! (Mark Penn, cough cough.)

[noam4prez]

I think Obama has been consistent, but consistently deceptive, from the beginning of the campaign. Like Clinton and Edwards, Obama has always ONLY spoken of withdrawing "combat troops". But, combat troops are only a fraction of the total troops in Iraq. In addition, there are about 160,000 "contractors" in Iraq as well. So, pulling out all "combat troops" and still leaving 60,000 occupiers in Iraq is completely consistent. The 3 major Democratic candidates have never said they would end the occupation, ever. They just made is sound that way.

Don't even get me started on "Bomb Iran" boy.

[ErikW65]

Isn't the whole project of figuring out what a given candidate for president will once in office an excersize in guesswork on everyone's part? Especially not limited to the candidates themselves?

It boils down to who says what, factored by their trustworthiness. The premise here is that because Obama has an advisor who wrote something which is "at odds" (by a few months, and with qualifiers attached....) with a pledge by Obama himself, that this means that Obama is himself untrustworthy.

When the only arguments against a candidate are comprised of non sequitirs, the case must be very weak.

[driven989]

I'm voting for Nader...I don't give a sh_t what anyone thinks! At least Nader is honest!

[ErikW65]

You're as Pure as the driven snow.

[Bluedog12]

Me too! Just as soon as these martians let me go.

[ErikW65]

This issue amounts to nitpickiing and gotcha politics. Going through campaign advisors' writings to find inconsistencies (May 2010 vs. "the end of 2010," big deal...) is an excercise in journalism, but I seriously doubt this will sway any voters
.
If what you really care about is getting US troops and citizens out of Iraq (and I suspect this is not the case with some anti-Obama posters on this thread....) then you can vote idealistically for Nader, or pragmatically for Obama. McCain would be out of the question, and Hillary simply has no credibilty left after all her the last two weeks of inconsistencies and repeated, identical, mistaken memories of exagerated foreign policy experience.

[youzaho]

Let's remember pragmatism is what got us Kerry in 2004. I don't know anyone who liked him as a first choice, but hey, he was a war hero! Of course he'll mop the floor with W. Howard Dean is just too crazy, right?

We all know how that story ended.

[yappnmutt]

i hope some of you are beginning to see how this game works. your views on matters of empire carry no weight.

[Crozier]

The troll spin is that Blackwater USA received its first contract during the DLC DINO Clinton Administration....TRUE.....the DLC President and the GOP NEOCON CONGRESS BOTH gave the Blackwater group their authorization and their funding.....

Whether Clinton or McBush.....you get the same MIC feast for the Corporatists.

[linquistic]

I'm going to wait on Obama's response to this, but why is everyone freaking out about this. He said that his withdrawal plan would be over a span of 16 months. He won't be inaugurated until 2009...DO THE MATH !!!....This isn't anything new, and his position hasn't changed on this.

[ErikW65]

Do the math? Why let facts get in the way? Overreacting to false controversies allows the anti-Obamans to get out all their frustrations.

[linquistic]

You're right...i guess they all seem to forget who voted for the war in the first place.

[nomobull]

until those words actually come from his mouth i"ll wait to judge. besides an advisor offers advice a president listens ,gathers information and then he decides. bushes problem was he had good advisors and good intelligence which he ignored and did what cheney said.

[Obamamo]

Senator Obama needs to understand that we expect him to get us out of Iraq as soon as he is sworn in. Anything else will be viewed as another Hillary Lieberman Clinton in Black make up. I am a staunch Obama supporter but he needs to clarify his Iraq position NOW.

[adamsmith]

McCain will win anyway. Who cares????

[TheJibreelaMonsters]

Silly kids. Obama's Children of the Corn will make excuse for him like the Massachusetts Moon bats that defend the Governor Deval Administration. These guys are using this as a get rich quick scheme to sale more books while the only thing you'll be left with is change in your pocket.

tomorrow Obama can say he is a Republican and you will make an excuse for that too!

[joebhed]

60,000 soldiers.
80,000 soldiers.
100,000 contractors.
All to do what, again?
Counter-insurgency.
Insurgency.
Insurgents.
While I am glad that so many HUFFPO commentors are still aware of the war in Iraq, I remain appalled at the MSM reporting, and many comments.
Terrorism 101.
Remember "shock-and-awe"?
Remember that we invaded a sovereign country for no good reason, killing maybe a million now, but hundreds of thousands for sure.
Do you remember that?
A militaristic, war-mongering group of uniformed terrorists invaded a sovereign country and destroyed its army and its security system so that it could continue to occupy that country some five years later.
All, to get control of its oil.
Did someone say insurgency?
Those Iraqis who opposed the invasion, be they Sunni or Shia militias are the insurgents.
Did they have a good reason to oppose the invasion, and the continuing occupation?
I think so.
What do these insurgents want?
An end to the occupation.
What do we want?
To continue to occupy so that we can end the insurgency.
Thus, the hundred year war drones on.
Do not expect Obama or Hillary to end the unjust war against the Iraqi people.
Until the American people can understand and accept the legitimacy of the insurgencya, and the insurgents, we are doomed.
Until we truly END our occupation, there can be no peace.
Peace.

[Jonahson]

Only after three years in office can you tell whether the president keeps his words about withdrawing troops. By that time more people would have died. We may not have read the fine line on his/her pledge - I plan to withdraw troops from Iraq when I become President........... that is, a token amount of troops.
Get these politicians to sign their pledge in black and white now. Once they get voted there is no stopping them.

[theJuanStar]

There is nothing shocking about this point. The Senator has continually stated we need to phase out in a careful manner and mentioned a 16 month time frame. Count the months from 01/20/2009 and you have 2010. Where were you guys with your " don't care for the troops" outrage when Hillary sent them to war? Where was the disdain when your patriotic President didn't provide the proper equipment to keep them safe?

[tbone99]

Actually his web site plan originally posted his goal as 2013,"if possible".So it shouldn't exactly be news to his supporters.