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

[Researchguy66]

60,000 is a great strategy! We should leave just enough troops so that the militias and terrorists can have fun shooting at them, but not enough that they can actually protect themselves. Brilliant!! That'll teach the soldiers for supporting the war.

[Colonial82]

You see he has many people with different of opinions not just YES MEN/WOMEN

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

LOL.

This is either half-baked, or half-assed.

Combined, that's what, a quarter half-bake-assed?

[lornejl]

That kind of talk is a guaranteed repub win in Nov. Why vote for a mini war monger when you can get the real deal in McInsane.

[konradarnok]

That kind of talk is a guaranteed dem win in Nov. Why vote for a mini war monger when you can get the real deal in Hillary.

[harriscrl3]

Well he can advise but I dont see Obama following this advice. For one thing Obama sees the troops being there as part of the problem NOT the solution. Obama said that he will get a reading from commanders on the ground to see how many brigades that can be withdrawn at a safe level that doesnt endanger the troop. He is also giong to work with the regional powers in the area in order to stabalize Iraq.

2010 at 10-12 billion dollars a month it will bankrupt the country and that is part of the reason why Obama wont keep them there. He has to weigh cost and benefits and the cost to staying there outweigh the benefits. I wish these people would realize that.

Carol

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

So... he's going to listen to the generals on the ground (inherited from Bush), but not his advisors (selected by Obama himself).

And you split that hair how exactly?

[harriscrl3]

Because Obama is going to remove troops from Iraq for the simple reason is that the cost of staying there outweigh the benefits. There is no good option here but staying there is the worse. He has to look at the big picture 12 billion dollars a month cannot be sustained especially when they are other threats that NEED resources there is no doubt that he will remove them and he is not going to wait until 2010. His only concern is at what rate can he remove them so that he doesnt endanger the troops that remain there and for that he needs the military commanders on the ground not these advisors. The troops being there in Obama's eyes is a part of the problem.

Carol

[neocon43]

Carol you are a idiot.We are not going to bankrupt country.Ou­r national defense is a very small 4-5% of our budget.Try medicare and the big give away programs that you endorse that is the problem.If Obama is going by what generals say then there is no difference between him and Bush.

[harriscrl3]

We doubled the national debt from 5 to 9 trillion and we are spending 200 bilion a year on Iraq and McCain says we will be there for 100 years and you have the nerve to call me an idiot. Wow I guess I'll take that as a complement coming from you.

Did you read what I said? Obama is NOT like Bush because he is looking at the ENTIRE PICTURE they threats in Afghanistan our being there is a threat to security. Its not just about the economy its about security. That is why he will NOT stay there. Bush and McCain are the IDIOTS who believe that staying there is the key to our security Obama DOES NOT. Obama thinks its a THREAT. Now do you get the difference.

Carol

[Colonial82]

WHAT? 4-5% What budget are you looking at? Military was over $500 Billion , and our budget is only $2.4 Trillion .

bush does listen to the generals, thats why so many have RESIGNED from the joints chief of staff because he WON't listen to them. They didn't want to go to war with Iraq and they Don't want to go to war with Iran

[coonce]

“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).”

As you point out --- Timelines are a byproduct of conditions on the GROUND. No candidate can GUARANTEE a complete or even almost complete removal of troops without first discussing conditions on the ground. Any candidate that SAYS they can are lying.

Ask Hillary for a SPECIFIC DATE as to when she'll have all the troops out of Iraq. You won't get one.

The difference between these Dem candidates and Bush/McCain is --- they WANT to get out of Iraq.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Timelines are a byproduct of the CALENDAR! That's the POINT.

If we went with conditions "on the ground," we'd just be rationalizing a stalemate. And that's a good thing, let alone a change in policy?

Sheesh.

[Steamboater]

Wanting something and doing it are two different things. Don't tell me you're going to end this war and then have something like 60,000 troops remain there. We never had enough troops in Iraq to begin with and those 60,000 will be like targets in a shooting gallery fighting for their lives every day. Then what? Is Obama going to send those pulled out to protect those in jeopardy? Iraq is not Reagan's little Grenadian adventure; it's a hell hole for our troops, but you don't seem to mind or even consider that.

[indianadem]

That is why I couldn't back Bill Richardson even though I like him....any­one who tells you that we can withdraw all the troops in 6 or 12 months is lying to you. We can't. As much as I am against the war and think we have done a terrible thing in Iraq....li­ke the saying says, "You break it, you bought it". We own Iraq now, in a sense....w­e owe the people there to try and make this shit better. But McCain certainly is not of the correct mindset to fix anything. Obama is smart and will make wise decisions, not politial decisions and not rash decisions, like Hillary.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Reagan pulled the Marines out of Lebanon in a New York minute.

[AreYouFibbing]

indiana...­.what kind of logic is that....yo­u can't back up Richardson, but you will back Obama who is being backed by Richardson. I have not seen any political savvy or good judgment out of Obama yet. He is planning on hydroplaning into the white house on that race card.

[TN]

If Obama is paying these people to advise him, he needs to get them to sign a contract saying they will not speak publically or privately at all untill after the November general. I wouldn't pay anyone who is stupid enough to say things that might hurt me when every word is twisted and analized. Smarten up obama - i'm for you but you must gain some control over your advisors.

[joeyp404]

So you support Obama, but not transparency? Isn't that one of Barry's catch words?

[Researchguy66]

tsk tsk, you mustn't criticize Obama or his apostles or followers. Obama is in favor of just the right amount of transparency that's good for us.

[TN]

See above - adviser doesn't mean he necessarily has to take that persons advice. A well rounded person would seek advice from many different people with differing views. Unlike the current president who just has yes men around him. Hell your even twisting what I'm saying - you soo make my point.

[tgood]

Okay. It would be okay if Obama was lying about his real stance on the war, as long as it isn't discovered before he's elected ? Oh yeah. "Change" is coming. Sheesh.

[indie17]

“We have experts and scholars with a range of views and Barack appreciates this range of views. They are in think tanks and like me they write in their own voice, they are people who do their independent scholarship. Barack Obama cannot be held accountable for what we all write,” she Ms. Rice.

Mr. Kahl yesterday said, “This has absolutely zero to do with the campaign.”

[Benmyoho]

CHANGE FOR THE WORSE, EH?

[TN]

You've made my point. He has many advisers with many different ideas and opinions. One of those advisers ideas or opinions get out and everyone like you thinks it's his position.

[JMS11302]

I honestly find it relieving to know that he has people around him that aren't afraid to speak up with their opinions. If you think about when you work with a group and only one person's opinon is allowed to voiced you rarely get the best result - but when many people voice their opinons then you can combine them all and have the best strategy in regards to whatever the problem is.

and the last time I checked the USA didn't consist of just 1 person - it consists of many different people from many different backgrounds and I for one am glad to here that Sen. Obama doesn't have a problem letting other people speak their opinions.

[ChrisS13]

I find most Obama supporter to be very hypocritical. If a HRC top policy advisor made a statement that contradicted her stance, you would be all over her. Hell go look at the Mark Penn blog for crying out loud. And unlike this, there is no correlation. Mark Penn is a campaign advisor, he's not a policy guy and he's not going to be a policy advisor. You guys seem to have a very bad double standard.

[Steamboater]

Where's the opinion among his advisors who say all the troops should come home and fast? Name one.

[VermontObama]

Is this the pushback over the other story that Clinton's Penn met with the Colombians in support of CAFTA? Sort of a weak pushback if you ask me.

[OhMyGoodness]

It's not a push back because this is something that Hillary has already stated:
Clinton: up to 60,000 Troops?
Clinton has stated that, “she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda,
deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.”
- From: “If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain.” By Michael R. Gordon and Patrick
Healy. The New York Times. 15 March 2007.
The kind of residual force Clinton describes is similar to that elaborated upon in reports
by the Center for American Progress, and the Center for a New American Security, both
that describe a residual force of 60,000 or so troops.
– “Strategic Redeployment 2.0: A Progressive Strategy for Iraq.” The Center for American Progress. By
Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis. May 2006.
– “Phased Transition: A Responsible Way Forward Out of Iraq.” Center for a New Ameican Security. By
James N. Miller and Shawn W. Brimley. June 2007.

This is the same organization that Kahl is associated with...

[DGregory]

the only thing i find alarming in this piece is this line here
"A key adviser to Senator Obama's campaign is recommending in a confidential paper that"

how does one in the media get a hold of confidential papers.... i dont know but its strange to me.

[danceswithyids]

Wow, then you must find reporting in general strange, as most sources are confidential when dealing with high priority secret information.
I'm sure it didn't sound strange when we found out we were torturing or that we had rendition.
So is it just strange because it is dealing with Obama and you would prefer to believe there is some conspiracy against him.

[myownwings]

Let's see how many people read the article before commenting. Anyone posting on HuffPo should know better than to use the headline as the substance of an article. What we have in Iraq is not a country with the same situations as existed in other parts of the world in which we have been occupying armies for so many years. We have not been in those countries for the peace of the world - we are there to position our troops, guard resources, etc. Are we going to sacrifice more of our children to guard the oil? And are we going to believe that they will be seen as a helpful occupying force when they have become so hated and caught between internal factions? Dream on.

[SLone08]

Nothing wrong with that. Obama's advisors seem to be giving him a range of opinions which he can consider when he becomes President. A lot could change between now and then.

[ErikW65]

Exactly right. This hullaballoo is just another version of the guilt-by-a­ssociation tactic used with regards to Rev. Wright. There is nothing but straw men left to attack, apparently.

[AreYouFibbing]

Obama's problem, once again, is that he said Rev. Wright was his mentor and spiritual advisor. I guess his deal is that he doesn't take advice from any advisors, is that it?
Look we all know you want Rev. Wright to go away, but he isn't.

[konradarnok]

"We need to be as careful getting out as we were reckless getting in."

It's going to be a long draw down no matter what. Between the troops and contractors, you don't move a quarter million people overnight.

gawd damn mess.

[neocon43]

Thats your talking points.It is not a mess.Most of IRAQ is peaceful.E­verybody is so worried that America is going to win on the left.This is going to be so enjoyable to watch!

[tbone99]

Glad to hear the death and destruction has been enjoyable for someone besides Bush and Cheney. I mean those tax dollars should bring some return.

[scamperdo]

Yeah, it was real peaceful last week when hundreds of Iraqis died and folks in Baghdad couldn't leave their homes.

So peaceful, recommendation is we CANNOT dial back to pre-surge troop force.

So peaceful, we are resorting to borrowing more and more from China so we can continue BRIBING Sunnis not to fight.

Much like Vietnam, the true story of lies won't come out until that mess ends, then we'll hear for years the vets actually being able to speak publically of the disastrous mission.

[robXdion]

He's an advisor. Doesn't mean Obama has to take his advice. But this won't stop people from running in here claiming Obama is flip-flopping.

[konradarnok]

It's not a flip flop at all. Obama has been consistent for a long time on this issue. It commendable he's being straight with the situation. Anyone who thinks we can pull out overnight doesn't understand the logistics involved in moving hundreds of thousands of people.

[hppygrl15]

Exactly...­.he has been saying within sixteen months in office....­well, if he takes office in Jan '09, sixteen months would be sometime in 2010.

[Steamboater]

Bullshit. This is 2008 and we can pull them out fast if we wanted to. We get there fast and can pull them out jus as fast. It doesn't take several years to do it either. You Obama supporters are allowing yourselves to be fooled. Where's Obama's denial of this report? If he disagrees with it, he should say so and today! And, he should fire this guy who's maing these recommendations. You'll wait until all the troops are pulled out of Iraq to hear or see that.

[rinpochet]

Of course. That would be in the same vein as saying that because Mark Penn supports the trade deal with Colombia, Hillary would too, even though she has publicly opposed it.

So, of they want to tie this adviser to Obama's public pronouncements on his plans for withdrawal, I am sure they will do the same for Hillary with Mark Penn. If he supports the Columbia trade deal then she must too. Right?

[ChrisS13]

How is it anywhere near the same. Mark Penn is not a policy advisor, he's a f'ing campaign advisor.

[Steamboater]

"They" already have blackened Clinton with doing that rinpochet.