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

[watchbird]

People, do you know how to read?

"...although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground)."

I think the negative comments are much ado about nothing.

[Carl2680]

you obamaniacs will be sorry come november. This guy will be smoked, how you can be the antiwar candidate when you have been voting to fund the war since you arrived in the senate in Jan 2005. Oh god I see another john kerry in the makind. 'I am against this war, but I vote to fund this war' that will be the new slogan by the repugs.

[Obamamo]

And Hillary Lieberman McWar Clinton is our saviour. Everytime that fake sorry ass for a woman opens her mouth she lies

[Prolix]

This gives one pause to consider the vaulted and exalted "judgment" that we have so often heard about in this campaign.

Was he wrong in his speech to an anti-war protest in 2002 as an Illinois state senator? Or is he wrong now?

Was Samantha Power excused from her campaign role for her monster comment or her comment about Sen. Obama not being held to "campaign rhetoric" about the war?

Is it the learning curve of understanding it is easier to pander an issue or try to be responsible with the execution of policy?

Is it the learning curve of understanding it is far easier to run than it is to govern?

Something that I find amazing in the MSM is this: No one and I mean no one has spent an iota of time bringing forth the fact that Sen. Obama has run for a higher office every three years since 1996. This fact will not be lost upon the neocons come this fall.

Be sure to know -- you will hear this again and again and again this fall. I can see the ad now, a timeline comparing Sens. Obama and McCain and what they were doing during their respective careers.

This election will be a 35-15 state electoral blowout for Bush III -- folks be appropriately forewarned.

[ErikW65]

Re. "Was he wrong in his speech to an anti-war protest in 2002 as an Illinois state senator? Or is he wrong now?"

Just exactly where is the incongruence? Please provide quotes.

[Prolix]

Sen. Obama's entire campaign finds its fundamental basis in his 2002 speech. Since coming to the Senate he has consistently voted in favor of the funding of the war just as Sen. Clinton has. Now, we learn that his adviser recommends upwards of 80,000 troops until at least 2010. Here are three of 482,000 possible:

Washington Post, Jan. 31, 2007:

Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008.

CNN, Nov. 2006

Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq in 2007, arguing that the threat of an American pullout is the best leverage Washington has left in the conflict.

"The time for waiting in Iraq is over. It is time to change our policy," said Obama, a freshman Democrat from Illinois touted as a possible national candidate in 2008. Obama called last year for a limited pullout of American troops from Iraq, but said it is now necessary for that withdrawal to begin in 2007.

Obama website via Associated Press: CLINTON, Iowa -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year.

My point is this: It is much easier to make proclamations as a state senator or as a candidate than it is to execute policy.

[Vern58]

Sorry, but i think your avocation as a psychic are somewhat suspicious. Barack Obama will keep his promises. Period.

[Prolix]

Hmmm, suspicious or do you mean specious?

Either way, they are my opinion. I freely agree that you may disagree.

Be well.

[tbone99]

Well, then he will be the first politician in history to do so!

[BrooklynLager]

As usual, there's yet another Clinton supporter in here who wants to make discussion of any sort impossible.

[timothe]

Like I've been telling you guys for a while, neither Democratic candidate is going to bring the troops home during their first term. You might as well go out and find an independent who will irresponsibly remove the troops. Sorry.

[ajax2]

There are so many hypotheticals attached to this opinion that it would not be dissimilar to talking out loud.

"should aim, should be the byproduct of negotiations , conditions on the ground)."

[pc51]

Obama knows what is best for us. Listen to the wisdom of Obama .I am certain that he has been given secret information and is and only ever will do what is completely right. He does not have a dishonest bone in his body. Obama will save us. PLEASE, listen to the wisdom of Obama!

[BillZBubb]

Obama has voted to fund the war at every opportunity. Yet he "opposes" the war.
Obama has not supported several moves in the Senate to bring the troops home. Yet he "opposes" the war.
Obama has not lead any effort in the Senate to end the war. Yet he "opposes" the war.
Now, this leaks out. But, Obama "opposes" the war.

His supporters are in for some big, big disappointments if he gets elected.

[ErikW65]

Oh please. We've been through this a million times. Once Harry Reid and the Dem leadership decided not to pursue the purse-string shut-down option, it was a fait accompli that no "game of chicken" would be played with Bush over war funding. Vote for Nader if you want to remain Pure. The rest of us hope-mongers will be voting pragmatically.

[BillZBubb]

I love the smell of rationalization in the morning!

[clbrune]

Heh, if you want to vote pragmatically you should be supporting Clinton.

That's why I prefer her over Obama. Pragmatism over rhetoric.

[Peteyman]

And you support this with.......?

[leftLibertarian]

I really want to vote for a Democrat but the candidates are not giving me reasons to:

1 - The DP refuses to impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney

2 - the candidates Obama and Clinton will not endorse an immediate pullout of all US troops.

So it appears that I will vote for either the Green or Libertarian party candidate who endorse an immediate pullout of all US troops from Iraq.

[ErikW65]

As long as you get to consider all your votes to be Pure, that really is the most important thing. There will be some anti-pragmatists who vote for Nader, that's a given.

[youzaho]

Yeah, how 'bout those Dems? A whole slew of them were elected into office in 2006 to do something about this war. Now they're running on the same platform in 2008. As W. would say: "Fool me once... shame on you... Fool me... you... You can't get fooled again."

And now it's time for the preemptive response to "but, but, but... Bush can veto stuff!!!" Puh-leez.

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&fg=rss&vid=0c49efbf-6c7e-475f-9304-dcaedd3a6907

Either the Democrats don't want and end to the war, or they're too afraid of President 32% approval rating. Make sense of that for me. Elect Clinton or Obama and I can all but guarantee you a continuation of this war. This story we're commenting on here points toward that outcome. Another 18 months of this useless carnage? Another 18 days is too long.

[research]

Look up Rahm Emanuel. He hand picked dem candidates who would promise to end the war and impeach, but who would not once in office.

[chumleypotts]

I have a nagging feeling that BO and HC will promise anything takes to get elected. I agree, the troops will not be withdrawn immediately, and we will be told, "depends on the conditions on the ground", but these words will not be heard until AFTER the election. I also predict that gas prices will remain high, and shoot even higher, despite a democratic congress that promised to lower them once they became the majority. Once the Bush tax cuts are rolled back, and additional taxes are levied, despite their campaign promises to give the struggling middle class a break, this class will be hardest hit, as is usually the case.

[tbone99]

Although I won't follow your example I totally agree with your reasoning.

[jus200008]

So what if Obama has a top adviser who has a different opinion than himself on the subject of Iraq. Would you rather that Obama surrounded himself with a bunch of yes-man like the current president? Obama's advisers have a variety of opinions on Iraq, and he listens to them all. That is how you make an intelligent decision. I am sure some of his advisers do think that we should stay 100 years in Iraq like Mccain. Some might want to stay 200 years. Some might one a precipitous withdraw no matter the consequences. Obama listen to all of his advisers, and forms his own opinion on the subject.

[ErikW65]

No, that's not really what we want (a candidate with yes-men for advisors,) although with Hillary and McCain, that's probably what we'll get.

[adcatlett]

Hmmm. seems to me Obama surrounds himself with too many ppl that majority of voters disagree with. Obama's true colors are shining.

[optiquest]

seems to me Mr. Obama has begun to pull off the sheeps clothing. Since the Senator is an enigma without any REAL experience in Military matters, I would be the farm he'd listen to Mr. Kahl. After the swear in, Obama announces 2 more years ofg Iraq! 60,000 troops till then, then he'd reduce them to 59,999 for 2011....59,998 in 2012...and so on and so on...Wow! what a pullout!.

Liberals were duped in 2006 and now after fainting over Obama and giving millions to his camaign, he isnt such a pullout guy after all.

[Peteyman]

For such a big talker, you seem to have a small brain. I'd like to remind you that part of his policy in Iraq is "being cautious pulling out, as were careless going in" Obviously you can't expect stability in the region by such a sudden pull out.

[jsinclair]

Thank you. Only Republicans would be thinking that every OPINION expressed by an ADVISOR is exactly what the candidate / president thinks and will do.

Democrats don't move in lockstep--even in an "advisory team" there will be difference to DISCUSS and THINK ABOUT.

I'm glad we won't have any more decision-making process like GWBs--not even calling a cabinet meeting to discuss the war and only "discussing it" with a "higher power" before deciding.

Obama loves the book, "A Team of Rivals" and I think he'll have a GREAT decision-making process. Very smart (something we haven't seen any of for 7 years).

[McSurgent]

The doolin Dems had their chance for an anti-war candidate - ole Dennis Kucinich himself. I heard that spaceship he flies around it could bring all the troops home in one swoop! Welcome to war and compromise Demmies!

[ErikW65]

Halliburton, McCain and Al Qaeda all want the same thing: for the US to attack Iran.

[happycozy]

Okay--I'm not great at math, but if Obama takes office in 2009, and he says he'll have troops out within 16 months, isn't that well into 2010? I don't see where Kahl's statement is inconsistent with what Obama's been saying. But I know the Obama-haters will find some way to deconstruct and twist Obama's and Kahl's statements to paint Obama as liar.

[ErikW65]

Spot on, thank you.

[peskyliberal]

The irony is that the 2 war canidates spook at the Civil Right Museum to honor person that would be opposed to the Invasion of Iraq and Iran.


Wow.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

1. 16 months would be May 2010. Not end of 2010.

2. 60,000 still there at end of 2010.

He's talking about only geting down to 60,000 troops by the end of 2010

[AjicNYC]

why would obama give a date of 16 months when he KNOWS he cant do it?????? He is the one that wanted to be affiliated with this "magic number" then let him now pay the consequence of it being absurd. Come on people he has lied about all important issues. Like nafta , the war, his ties to wright, his contributers like rezko. This guy is bush in a black face. He got the media so scared to ask a question and when they do he walks away from them. (look it up on youtube Obama abc news) When will obama be held accountable for things and when will the press start to ask him real questions with actual follow up questions to his vague comments

[ErikW65]

How does he "know he can't do it"? Your anti-Obamaism has clouded your judgement, and like the Clintons, you believe your own lies about him.

When will Sen. Obama be held accountable for things? You mean like when asked hypothetical questions about actionable intelligence on bin Laden in Pakistan, or AQ taking over Iraq, and then having his responses twisted around by ABC's Jake Tapper, and Sen. McCain?

[optiquest]

Me thinks you been duped by Obama. His preacher is a racist and anti american, Obama never heard any of that in 20 years! Then he said he heard that but dint agree with it! But still went n heard it each sunday for 20 years. I bet his resume is false. No one knew the guy before 2004. He has not been vetted, He pulled the wool over the eyes of the liberal channels, aka ABC,CNN CBS NBC, PMSNBC et al. I think he's anti war only in drag; truely he wants to fight them Iraqis

[clbrune]

"anti-obamaism"? What the hell is that? It sounds like what fanatics call anyone who criticizes their idol.

[calirighty]

*Sits back with his popcorn and smiles as he watches Obama fans and Clinton fans duke it out.

[IAM4CLINTON]

Senator Obama has made jis judgement and opposition to the Iraq war a central aspect of his campaign and runs around the country saying that he will bring our troops home in 16 months ! This leaked memo is revealing that even his advisors think otherwise. With Obama really un-tested beyond a short insignificant and achievement bereft career in the Senate, he will need to rely more on his advisors. And who he chooses as his advisors are key to understanding what he will reasonably do as president. The company he has chosen including his advisors, mentors and pastor is not very reassuring

[research]

Pastor Wrights speeches are good, try listening to the WHOLE speech.

Kennedy and other president often have adviser who represent opposing points of view.

I hope Obama will end the damn Iraq war crime ASAP, but if he says he will, the MSM will cut him off at the knees.

[ErikW65]

No. The anti-Obamans rely on taking quotes out of context to make their case.

[Kynn]

Like others have said, 16 months is the middle of 2010. Which is what the report says.

And it's not even leaked, it was posted to the website of the company the guy works for.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

yes, but Obama said he would leave a small residula force in Iraq. I don't call leaving 60,000 troops there AFTER 2010 a small residula force