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

[research]

So Obama must do what his adviser's suggest?

[optiquest]

yes, Obama will, he knows nothing about military, nothing about military planning and nothing about Iraq. He'll listen

[JavaCityGal]

Yes he will listen. That's what intelligent people do, they listen to all sides. And then they use good judgment to make a decision. Just because an advisor suggests something, doesn't mean that Obama will actually do it. Presidents have many advisors on many different issues, only the President can make the decision. Obama didn't need an advisor in 2002 to know that Iraq was a big mistake. And Obama has been 100% about his intentions to leave Iraq, there is no news here.

Hillary knows nothing about military. And obviously McCain does. Maybe too much -- it's all he knows, he knows nothing about the economy or about foreign policy (can't tell a Shiite from a Sunni). And usually people gravitate towards what they know, meaning that McCain will always gravitate towards what he knows, war.

[Serfie]

I knew Obama was a liar. He is not going to end no war as president.

I bet the Obama Thugocrats will say "but, but Hillary voted for war..."

This just proves how stupid the Obama Thugocrats are. Punish a senator for her one vote of a hundred, but let Obama off the hook because he wasn't there to vote. Obama, the fraud, hasn't done shit as Senator to end that war, and now we find out he won't end the war during his first term.

I wonder what excuses the Obama Thugocrats will have in defense of the indefensible.

I know, I know "but, but Hillary..." Yes we can has turned into but, but Hillary.

[ErikW65]

You can make the accusation of "liar," but can you support it with facts?

[AreYouFibbing]

Didn't his foreign policy advisor, who got the boot recently, also show him to be a liar?

Didn't he lie about his relationship with Tony Rezko?

Didn't he "fudge" on how much money he received from Tony Rezko?

Didn't he lie about what he heard Rev. Wright say or not say in church. One day he denied hearing his anti-american rants, in his cya speech a few days later, oh yeah I was there.

There are more....

[JavaCityGal]

Erik-some of these people are nutjobs -- they don't want intelligent debate or facts, that want to rant and rave. I don't even believe that they are Hillary supporters, they're too dumb to be Democrats. I'm just flagging all of 3cubeprime rants for spam, and I encourage you to do the same.

[MrRex]

Looks like the "salesman" has his foot in the door again. Pretty soon he'll be inside and you will have bought it all. Only problem, no money back guarantee!

[ErikW65]

Obama is as honest a politician as you'll find in this day and age, and when compared to the confused doubletalk of McCain, and the blatantly exaggerated lies of Hillary (Bosnia sniper fire) he is a breath of fresh air.

Keep framing; it's transparent and fools no one.

[danceswithyids]

I've noticed that everyone on this article's comments are referring to the size of the American force, but each time they are only giving half the number. There are twice as many Americans there. Don't forget the drivers, servers, contractors and mercenaries who are all American.
So if being there is the problem, and we pull out our military, there is still going to be half the number of us there. So won't there still be a mess?

[huffnpuffn]

Remove the economic incentive, i.e. the war money, and the war profiteers will leave too. As vile as these major military contractors are, they have plans in place to get their people out. But why leave when the money spigot is still turned on full blast?

Where's your 18 month plan by the way? I really want to find someone who isn't just parroting conventional wisdom who can give some concrete reasons why 18 months is a reasonable minimum for a total redeployment of troops. We're not moving buildings here. We aren't walking out. What does 18 months really consist of besides sitting on one's hands for 17.5 months and then getting down to business?

[Barky]

What is all the hubbub about. Do the naysayers know anything about an orderly withdrawal of about 150,000 personnel plus providing cover for another 100,000 additional mercernary type forces? How about the equipment?
I believe BO said 16 months for withdrawal of all COMBAT troops. There are many support personnel in the above numbers. Lastly 16 mos. from Jan. 09 is approx. May '10. Bite me hard about the difference between May '10 and "late" '10 ......considereing what the chimp has put everyone thru and the need for ORDERLY withdrawal with a PLAN.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

claiming to leave a small residual force, and now saying leaving 60,000 troops is quite a difference

[vanessa04]

Oh for the days of, "I will immediately begin withdrawing the troops and I will end this war within a year."

Once again:

Obama+Big Fat Lie = Oopsie!

Clinton+ Big Fish Story = Draw and quarter the b*tch!

File this one right up there with, he was never in the pews, he had only a passing association with a fundraising slumlord, Canada will have to shape up for NAFTA (not), He was conceived after Selma which happened after he was born, and on and on.

There are inconsistencies in his inconsistencies.

[ErikW65]

Can you document the supposed "big fat lie" or does it just exist in your imagination?

[NightRider]

"A key adviser to Senator Obama’s campaign is recommending........"

What is all the huffing and puffing about?

Folks, the operative word is RECOMMENDING.

Which means the RECOMMENDATION or proposal has to be reviewed, debated, discussed, analyzed and agreed before the President, and all his advisers, makes a final decision to implement as a policy.

This is the kind of deliberate thinking and opinion-sharing i want my party to do. Let the experts and brainiacs brainstorm policies and decide what is best for this country.

This is actually refreshing to know. At least we now know that the Obama campaign is not all speech. I already see my small donation at work in the right way. Give it a rest and let the experts recommend, debate, discuss, analyze and then decide. Besides the time line fits with what i have heard from Obama and he did not yet agree to the RECOMMENDATION.

Stop the Huffing and Puffing!

[Steamboater]

This isn't something that just popped up now. Obama knew or should have known how is advisors stand on various issues. You do a background check on them before hiring them. He must have known how this guy felt about the war and at least had a good clue as what he would recommend even before hiring him. I knew there was something with a bad smell about Obama's talk about ending the war. Remember, he wouldn't agree to pull all the troops out of Iraq before 2013 and now this. All you Obama supporters do is make excuses for his lies.

[ErikW65]

Right, and "every candidate should enforce their positions as dogma, g_ddammit!"?

You sound desperate for a reason not to vote for Sen. Obama. As long as you apply the same standards to either Sen.s Clinton or McCain, then you'll probably be voting for Ralph Nader.

p.s. Please document the statements you consider "lies," if you dare.

[JerryTheAngel]

If Senator Obama has advisers telling him these things, then he needs to get rid of them and find a few military experts like General Odom who can and will get our troops out of that hellhole in a timeframe Senator Obama has been talking about on the stump.

And if he doesn't do this, he becomes just another old style DC politician who says one thing and does another thing. I want Senator Obama to address this before I will continue to support him. The war is the number one issue for me because I am tired of seeing our brave troops dying for ungrateful Iraqis who are not worthy of a democracy that we enjoy here in the USA.

Like Ron Paul said: We leave Iraq the same way we went into Iraq and yes, it is that simple.

[kcinci]

Jerry... you've not had enough of a president who just does what he wants and damn the consequences? We've had that... that's why we are where we are now. And that's certainly not what being a liberal means to me. We pickup and remove our 300,000 people in a month (and yes it could be done) there will be devastating consequences for generations to come and America will most certainly be less safe than ever before.

[Steamboater]

If we don't pull out completely more Americans will die and for what? Democracy LOL. What happens after we leave is up to the Iraqies and we can't stay there forever. If we did, 10 years from now you'll still be saying the same thing. Obama is full of it. He won't end this war but only do what you recommend and what this guy who wants 60,000 American troops in Iraq wants. That's a death penalty for so many of them. You're wrong. Fatally wrong.

[kcinci]

My goodness 8 pages since this story broke...day job anyone?
Did anyone read this opinion paper of this adviser before jumping on the 'screw-em-all' wagon?
The fact is both candidates have stated they will make the best determinations possible based on the facts at the time they take office.

They both have goals of starting withdrawals, nearly immediately upon taking office.

Neither candidate has addressed the 150,000+ US contractors in Iraq and how they figure into the withdrawal equation.

And by gawd they had better both have voted to fund the troop. Bad enough they've strapped and left wanting and needing with what has been spent. GWB indicated he would leave the troops in Iraq regardless of how the congress funded, and his 50%-o-crony-senate had no intentions of bucking him. GWB turned our troops into pawns... not our candidates.

I hope we continue to hear what experts to our candidates are saying. This voter appreciates that kind of transparency. From both the candidates. Just like the transparency we're really getting the HRC campaign about going after any delegate.... "No such thing as a pledged delegate... just delegates and I'll make my case to them..., "HE CAN'T WIN BILL, HE CAN'T WIN".

This ranting and raving drivel really depicts how insecure persons are in their own positions that they have to resort to spewing vile lies and insults versus defending their positions using rational thought and evidence. Dare I say, "Judgement."

[mix2007]

Obama has the best Iraq policy there is.

Carefully getting out as quickly as can be done safely.

Hillary wants to rush out in 60 days -- crazy.

Mccain will stay in forever.

Obama will get us out by 2010.

[huffnpuffn]

60 days is too long. Out of Iraq now is a better policy.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

you misstate Clinton's policy. She wants to BEGIN to withdraw troops in 60 days. She has said many times it would be 1 - 2 brigades per month. IT is actually the same 1 - 2 brigades per month that Obama USED TO support.

[jmk65]

hillary has never said she wants us out in 60 days. she will begin WITHDRAWL within 60 days. she has said it may take a year to do it and wants to be as safe and responsible as she can be.

[huffnpuffn]

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. George W. Bush wants a "safe and responsible" withdraw of troops too.

Part of accepting that the Iraq War was a colossal failure is recognizing not one more, not one hundred more, not even one thousand more dead Americans will solve anything in that country.

Notice none of the three major candidates left are willing to take a hard line against this war? Two voted for it from the start. All have voted to continue funding it. None are willing to set a hard deadline for getting us the hell out of there. They differ in degree, not substance.

[KDH]

On July 28th, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an "absolute obligation" to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

[AreYouFibbing]

KDH....he also said he was going to fulfill his entire term as a senator....what should we believe....Obama or our lying eyes?

[EinChicago]

Or 2012... or not at all.


Obama is all talk no action.

[LeftLeanWing]

He's not president YET; so all that he do now is tell you where he is headed.

[mix2007]

Obama said 16 months pull out.

2010 is 12 months from Jan 2009.

I see no contradiction.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

because his advisor is now suggesting 60,000 troops still there at the END of 2010.

Obama always has said MOST ofthe troops out withing 16 months. which brings us to April/May of 2010. And he always said SMALL residual force left there.

End of 2010 is not 16 months and 60,000 troops is not a SMALL residual force

[6louis9]

Late 2010 is the contradiction.

[haboob]

what if al qaeida is still there. then what dolt ?

[amanda85]

"what if al qaeida is still there. then what dolt ?"

Al Qaeda is not a real organization, just an ideal. It will always exist in any place illegally invaded and occupied by the XXI century nazis. The more you stay there, the bigger it will get. I know, I know, too hard for you to comprehend...

[transendentilist]

16 months to end a war he was against "from the beginning?" The one he keeps voting to finance, just like Hillary does??

[Tellmethetruth]

Obama doesn't know what he is doing when it comes to Iraq- he has been all over the map on this issue since 2002.

1) Speech saying we shouldn't go into Iraq
2) Speech saying he would h ave done the same as GW Bush
3) voted in Congress to support all funding of the war
4) refused to vote for the Biden Resolution to End the War in Iraq in October of 2007 (one of 2 Senators to not do so) The resolution passed 75 to 23 in the Senate and in the House and was vetoed by GW Bush
5) Didn't show up to vote on the Lieberman-Kyle Amendment on Iran
6) Mentioned in all debates he would have the troups out in 1 year and leave none behind
7) Mentioned in debates he would leave it up to the Generals to figure out how to get out
8) Now is saying he will leave 60,000 troups in (originally 130,000 were sent - that means only a 50% withdrawal

Obama has never been in the military and is not endorsed by any generals of significance except for Powell who is also Black.

Hillary has at least been in the White House and is supported by the majority of generals.

When it comes to the War in Iraq - please get Obama off the stage - he is a disaster in waiting.

[CostaMesaJoe]

"Hillary has at least been in the White House and is supported by the majority of generals"

You forgot to add that she also VOTED FOR this war and Barack didn't. BOTTOMLINE.

Yeah, voting for a ridiculous, unnecesary war was a show of great judgment.
She enbaled this country to fall in mud and now your point is to berate Obama for stepping in it and trying to manage us out however possible.

How about we should have NEVER BEEN THERE TO BEGIN WITH.


Hillary is a disaster that HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.

[Oldtt]

Aside from the fact that she didn't vote for war, lucky for Barack that he was still in the Illinois State Senate in 2003. Little did he know back then that his inconsequential opinion would translate into millions of devout supporters 5 years later.

[jmk65]

to vote for anyone over one issue is dangerous in my mind.

[demigod]

Once again the Obama people show undying hatred for Hillary, when they need her supporters to win this election. They are worse than Rush Limbaugh, while they preach "unity" and "new politics" - it makes no sense to crow about a vote against the war, AND support staying there for years, just to support your man. Hillary has the plan to get out NOW, that's all I care about. It doesn't take years to line the ships up at the dock, load up all men and equipment, and get the hell out. I don't support any of this face-saving crap, or defending the embassy, NOTHING - I want out NOW, completely. If the Iraqis butcher each other, I couldn't care less, it reflects on their barbarism and their horrifying religion. When you're in a burning house, you RUN OUT. Period. I don't want one single more American to die over Iraq. GET OUT NOW. If Barak's people are saying years, NO NO NO. He also talks about doubling up in Afghanistan - that's crazy, too. We need to get the hell out of there too. That's another unwinnable quagmire against crazy local maniacs.

[scamperdo]

1) HRC didn't even bother to read the NIE, good grief, she's LAST person I want actually making ANY future decision on war policy, she and George Bush are 2 peas in a pod, so arrogant they don't need to read no stinking intelligence, they know better.

2) Well at least Obama did NOT vote FOR Kyl-Liebermann. If it was up to HRC US would go attack Iran. She's right she and and McCain have passed the Commander and Chief WAR HAWK test.

3) Actually Obama IS endorsed by several generals, and amazing some are actually WHITE. I know that's impossible for someone like you to understand, but NOT everything is about RACE.

Powell IS black and NEWSFLASH he hasn't endorsed Obama or anyone as of yet. Besides, I do NOT want endorsement of the generals who WANTED/VOTED for this war. Those are the generals HRC has gone after.

4) Obama said HE will start troop withdrawl and take 16 months. So one of his advisor pens his ideas on private paper, hmm, last time I checked GOOD Presidents listen to advice from LOTS of sources and then makes decision. It's only Bush who fires anyone that doesn't agree with him, Generals/Admirals, Obama actually LIKES to surround himself with DIFFERENT povs. HRC is just like Bush, only wants YES MEN around her, that is what scares me the MOST, she's just like McCain, HER way or NO WAY. ENOUGH of that inflexible, arrogant foreign policy.

[KDH]

"HRC didn't even bother to read the NIE"

Wasn't the Bush administration accused of faulty intelligence in the lead up to the war? If so, what good would that NIE have been? Are you saying that a Bush produced NIE would have been reliable?

[AreYouFibbing]

And Powell is a freaking liar who helped sell the idea of invading Iraq to the American public. Powell has NO credibility in my book.

[KeysDan]

The policy that we must continue the funding of the war (and even enlarge it) so as to support the troops does not make sense to me, unless we are, in fact, supporting a l00-year war. The war funding should be decreased in accord with a schedule for reducing troop levels, and, concurrently, reducing the number (about the same as the number of troops at present) of war contractors, such as Blackwater security forces and other soldiers of fortune. The bulk of faculty members of the "go very slow" school of withdrawal have been wrong about most of the policies that have gotten us into this mess. We need to face it, withdrawal at any pace will be painful for all; there is no certain evidence that slow withdrawal will be much worse for our national security and for the welfare of the Iraqi people than a quick and ordered combat troop withdrawal along with a reasonable number of residual police-like forces for embassy and other security. A political companion to troop withdrawal should be partitioning of the country into more secure sections recognizing the 1300-year old differences between groups. Much of this has already happened, it just needs to be codified. Senator Obama should reject any advisor's thinking that relies on tired paradigms--it is time for a change.

[donaldw6]

If any Obama supporters are actually getting bent out of shape over this, please relax. I'm not going to even bother defending Obama's position here. A couple of folks who probably have an agenda, like Mr. Lake, seem to be trying to make hay over this, but it's silly. This will prompt Obama to restate his position, which he will do, and he'll reiterate why he values a range of opinions, and voila. End of story.

Save your collective breaths for something important, or if you want to have fun with some of the posts here, knock yourselves out.

[LORISNJ]

Thank you for the insight, I was about to explode over this but my coworkers are getting tired of scrapping my body parts off the ceiling everytime one of these "stay in Iraq" stories break.

I am taking a deep breath and will remain calm.....thanks again!

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

your co-workers? Maybe you should be doign your job instead trolling the internet at work.

[calirighty]

And people wonder why that kind find jobs. Idiots like you are trolling websites when you should be working.

[Oldtt]

The best way to deal with bad news is to simply ignore it.

[BetterDeadthanRedState]

It is not accidental, it is intentional when people pretend to blur the lines between Obama and his advisors, religious or political. If he refused to surround himself with people with different opinions and positions, wouldn't he be just like George W.?

[scamperdo]

Exactly, I am way MORE scared of leaders who surround themselves by YES MEN or WOMEN and refuse to hear opposing povs, like Bush and McCain. HRC is no better, it's HER way or NO Way that led to health care disaster and she's way too ruled by POLLS. She doesn't got to the bathroom without first checking with a focus group.

[Mike O.]

Yeah, he'll give a speech, in which he'll lie to you some more. You'll get all warm and fuzzy at the sound of his voice. You'll get tingles in your legs a'la Chris Matthews. You'll nominate the liar.

AND.....

Welcome President McCain!

[jsinclair]

Seriously, there has to be a transition of some sort. The most important thing will be the change of GOAL.

No "Winning". No "Surge". And beginning the process of bringing troops home (really bringing them home, not just pretending to, Bush-style, with rotations).

Everyone knows you can't just get out of Iraq completely right? You can't change a country's political and military system by force, and then just leave them to civil war.

Especially not when they control a huge amount of the world's oil. People DO understand this, right?

.....Right?

[haboob]

wrong study viet nam. then study alternative energy, then take a nap

[BetterDeadthanRedState]

I'll agree with you up to the point that I don't think the oil should be a major concern. Withdrawal needs to be the goal, and not in 100 years. But it is easy to see a scenario in which a haphazard withdrawal could cause greater casualties than time tables and in phase and (something that's been almost totally lacking in this misadventure) planning.

[demigod]

NOPE - get out NOW. It's THEIR oil, not ours. It's THEIR civil war, not ours. It's THEIR insane religion, not ours. I want out NOW. RIGHT THIS SECOND. I don't care what happens after, it's none of our business. They had a home-grown guy with an army who had all this mess under control, and we HUNG HIM. I don't trust ANY of our leaders or foreign policy "experts" - they are all liars with agendas. The sooner we leave, the sooner the Iraqis will settle their own hash and become the nation they will become sooner or later. We cannot stop their destiny, or substitute ours for theirs. If we didn't want Iraq allied with Iran, we should have left Saddam there. We didn't, so we reap the horrors of our idiotic intervention. We can only hope to negotiate relations with the next government of Iraq, whatever that government may be. This is the tragedy of the Bush legacy, mindless intervention in complete disregard for the consequences. Blame him, no one else.