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

[KQuark]

The fact is that Hillary has voted the same as McCain on Iraq and Iran. She has no credibility when it comes to bringing the troops home. That being said I think Clinton and Obama will end the war. This is another argument where the Democrats are very similar to each other in policy and McCain is the warmonger. Anyone calling Obama or Clinton the warmongers are just posturing for their candidate and ignoring the reality of the situation like a loyal Bushie.

[mix2007]

Obama has been calling for a pull out within 16 months

Jan 2009 + 16 months = 2010

Apology accepted.

[Oldtt]

Nice math, but commencing a pullout in 16 months- not 60 days - extends the timetable to more like 32 months. Colin Kahl's memo envisions leaving 60-80 thousand troops until 2010, so the kind of pullout Obama has been calling for in speeches would not be completed until at least Fall 2011. This is all just a numbers guessing game anyway, since it's highly predictable that circumstances between now and then will dictate the speed of any pullout. The point is: Obama criticizes Clinton for saying she would leave a residual force in Iraq, while his most senior Iraq strategist writes confidential memos suggesting that he would do the same thing. This emerging pattern of having Obama say one thing in public while his most senior advisors are saying something different in private should ground his supporters in reality.

[mix2007]

"Nice math, but commencing a pullout in 16 months- not 60 days - extends the timetable to more like 32 months."

Why?

60 days is HRC's goal. Weird to mention it.

Obama said 16 months.

2010 is not 32 months.

Sorry, you are wrong, and can't do math. (But we knew that of HRC supporters!)

[Ammobob]

As a up and coming consumate politician, Obama reserves the right to change his rhetoric as he sees fit to garner votes. His public IRAQ War rhetoric does not reflect his advisors 'advice' nor his own intentions hinted at thru numerous interviews. He will NOT be known for being the President that surrenders in IRAQ. As my present boss says, say what you have to, to get the job, then do what you want once your have it.

[KQuark]

Obama was the only one still running who showed courage before the war and he will show political courage by ending the war.

[terriergirl]

There was no courage involved when Obama was anti-war in Ilinois. That was the ONLY position he could take to win his seat....just like leaving 60,000 troops in Iraq will be the position he will drift towards once the general election commences. He is running hard left now, will do an about face later. He is a politician, not the beatific vision. Face it, folks - he says what will get him elected.

[Rogue55]

I don't agree that Obama showed political courage regarding the war when he gave that speech. He was a state senator who was giving a speech to a bunch of people in a very liberal district who pretty much were against the war. He did NOT have to vote on anything and had nothing to lose at all by making those statements.

A few years later, he even admitted that if he had been privy to the intelligence reports that the Congress had – if he had all the information they had, he didn't know how he would have voted.

I think you're naive if you think Obama (or Clinton) would end this war. Not that they wouldn't want to, but Bush has us in so deep, it's going to be a next to impossible task to get out. And Obama hasn't ruled out the idea of using private security forces like Blackwater to take over either.

I like Barack Obama and will vote for him, but this idea that he is some sort of more evolved human being who is going to do all these wonderful things he speaks about in his campaign is just not very realistic.

[Mike O.]

Isn't that the definition of "Politics As Usual"?

I thought that he and his supporters decried the old style politics of "say what you have to, to get the job, then do what you want once your have it". Isn't that what all you liberals thought George Bush did?

I thought that Obama represented change. Did he lie about this too?

[KQuark]

All this proves is Obama does not shut out any views even opposing views. The last we need is another president caught in a bubble. Hillary has offered no goal to bring out the troops and has not committed to not having permanent bases in Iraq. Hillary supporters trying to make something out of this are just playing politics with the troops like Republicans.

[Ammobob]

So what you are saying is Obama can have it BOTH ways with no problem, but other's can't? Is that a double standard? I think it is............I remember, OBAMA is our savior. He's the only one to save America's sinful soul and set the country on the path of righteousness in the eyes of other nations. OOOOOOOHHHHHHMMMMMMMMM.................droooolinnnnnggggg, arghhhhhhhhh.......

[KQuark]

Stop with the hyperbole. It's not a double standard. It's getting input from all possible sources. You hatred for Obama is showing through. You obviously are the one with an immature emotional response to anything Obama supporters say.

[Peteyman]

Quit referring to Obama as a cult leader, it only insults his supporters, and proves that you can't accept the fact that Obama is winning

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Boy, guess you haven't been listening. Hillary's plan has been stated very clearly over and over that on day one she will have her military advisors draw up the plans to begin withdrawing troops within 60 days. She has said many times that she estimates being able to bring out 1 - 2 brigades per month. That is why several months ago she called on the pentagon to prove they have already been putting together the plans for an exit strategy

[KQuark]

She still has no plan to remove permanent basis in Iraq. Her plan is just a flexible withdrawal process. She like Bush and McCain has no goals or milestones.

[abdiel]

Such typical Obamabot rhetoric. Even I, as one who does not support any of the lasting presidential candidates, know that your statement about Clinton is utterly disingenuous.

See, NoGoodNamesLeft's comment -- that bit of info is Clinton's repeated position for months now.

Whether it would be true in practice is another can of worms -- Obama, Clinton, AND McCain are just political shills.

Geez, I keep reading that Obama voters are more educated than Clinton supporters, but dang if I don't observe the exact opposite in conversation. During my University studies fact checking was an essential part of education. Obama people just make things up as they go.

Very odd.

[Oldtt]

The old "I know I am, but what are you?" retort.

[diablogoulet]

I was against this war in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005...

And Rezko was just a good buddy.

Right.

[haboob]

i was against the war before i funded the war

[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.

"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster," he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. "It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective."

In late winter, 2008, on the campaign trail, Obama says he wants to bring the troops home yesterday -- you decide -- was he lying then or is he lying now?

[LeftLeanWing]

The problem is that the Iraqi State can never be successful as long as it is being occupied by our troops. Militarily we can only take is so far...

It has a political infrastructure to move on on its own and as long as we are there pulling the strings they can never be successful on their own.

[scamperdo]

Link please, NO more out of context quotes, rather tired of folks who were NOT in Boston as I was shilling this BS.

[KDH]

A simple google search would have found the link. Long link URL's don't show up to good on HuffPo, but here goes:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/08/obama_stance_on_iraq_shows_evolving_view/

[maria1253]

Be sensible. This is a written recommendation from an adviser. Obama did not say "This is what I will do." I would rather have him listen to a lot of perspectives as to the best way to get us out of this mess than be a singleminded dolt like Brush. You know they cannot just come home all at once. They will have to do this in a manner that will still protect our troops..and give Iraq some support. Which is still better than 100 years in Iraq. H Clinton voted for this war, remember this. Her husband made liberal use of no-bid contracts to Halliburton during his administration, and Hill is just waiting to keep that cash flow going. Plus Bill has a lot of contacts in the middle east..done deals with some real questionable characters while out of office.

[jmk65]

what do people not like about the peace and prosperity of the 90s?

and this is not the first "advisor" to say things like this.

[haboob]

like the advisor telling canada BO is behind nafta just telling his base what they want to hear, another key advisor is just another fluke. the saviour does not have judgement issues at all. or just maybe he doing bamboozling himself.

[LeftLeanWing]

The prosperity of the 90's was a function of the internet and technology boom that start in the early 90's causing a boom and then a bust during the late 90's.

Bill Clinton was fortunate to have his presidency to occur during that period. The next president will not be so lucky I don't think unless there is a green job revolution that hasn't started yet.

Just by putting Hillary in the office would not guarantee prosperity unless there is a new job engine on the horizon.

[scamperdo]

Well, considering under Clintons, the Democrats LOST house, senate, governorships, and states houses and those losses plus the Monica scandal, helped usher in REPUBLICAN dictatorship at state and federal level which enabled GWB's 7 long disastrous years... I'd say NO WAY do I want to elect another Clinton. And no WAY do I want another NAFTA disaster he shoved down our throats.

This country cannot afford anothe Bush or CLINTON run, they are like hurricanes, they leave too much devastation in their wake.

[maggieb]

I see you remembered to take your "bash Hillary" pill today. This matter IS actually about Obama, can you not lose focus? Oh forgot, you only get paid to dog Hill. You are so easily distracted. Barack Obama is one slick liar. Bamboozled again.

[KQuark]

Hillary supporters are being totally disingenuous on the war in Iraq. Obama has already said he will listen to all view on Iraq before he acts. The 16 months is a goal and he is committed to not keeping permanent bases in Iraq. Anyone trying to make political points out of this is just trying to play gotcha politics.

[LeftLeanWing]

This article is from the NY Sun - a paper whose political orientation is "right-of-center, and an associate of Conrad Black predicted in 2002 that the paper would be "certainly neoconservative in its views. -

That being said.

One of Obama's many foriegn policy advisors wrote a policy paper expressing HIS OWN views and only his own views. This is then extrapolated to mean that this MUST BE Obama's view and he's not being truthful.

I'm sure Obama has many advisors who have his ear - with varying views from all angles. That is their purpose to give him a variety of wide va riety of views on a topic and it is his responsibility to listen and creating his own perspective and action plan.

I think many commentors here have leapt to conclusions and others are using anything to disrupt and misrepresent Obama's message and campaign.

However, this is different than what Mark Penn is doing. Mark Penn is actively lobbying congress to support a trade agreement Hillary says she is against and as POTUS she could veto. Penn is playing both sides of this issue.

[terriergirl]

Obama's campaign is disciplined...this wouldn't have come out if it wasn't a trial balloon to see how it plays with independents. Obama is a politician.

[danceswithyids]

This article seems to be about Senator Obama and some of the thoughts on what to do with Iraq.
How does Mark Penn and Clinton fit into this equation.

This deals with Iraq, and guess what, this advice is just that.
Eventually in 2012 we'll all be hearing about some different advice.
Obama nor Clinton will be able to get us out of Iraq once they are in office.
Why?

Because every military advisor they have will tell them it is a non starter.
America needs to face the music that Iraq is like one of those snapping jawed bear traps.
We are caught, eventually we will face ruin or we will metaphorically be forced to chew our own leg off.

This is a total mess and for people to think getting out will be even remotely easy needs to remove their rose colored glasses.
And then unfortunately we will see this taffy-like sticky mess for what it is.
The single biggest failue in US foreign policy.

[abdiel]

Hey --

The U.S. withdrew a whole lot more from Viet Nam and there was no end of the world -- or even an end of an empire. Packing it in and going back home is a whole lot easier than trying to occupy a country where the people don't want ya.'

I don't know about you, but my Mum taught me that when there's a mess you clean it up. The mess for the U.S. military is that they're caught in a quagmire in a country where they are not wanted nor where they belong. How do you clean up that mess? You remove it.

Neither candidate will get the U.S. out of Iraq not because of "military" advisers, but because they are both agents for interests other than those of the people at large.

[haboob]

spot on

[danceswithyids]

OK we all get what you are hinting at, you are clearly implying in the end of your statement that we are over there fighting for Israel.
If that is what you want to continue to believe, go for it.
First of all Israel is full of so many different points of view, if we are fighting for them, them is actually only a small amount of people, my dear conspiracy theorist and lover of attacking AIPAC.

Also, please learn geography. Vietnam is and was a peninsula, last time I checked Iraq was not. This means the ramifications of leaving are greater due to the surrounding countries and them each having their own goals to achieve. The only country bordering Vietnam was China and if you'd like to learn history the Vietnamese have spent thousands of years succesfully keeping the Chinese out just like the Koreans have done.

I also love you saying that we are the mess there and magically after we extricate ourselves everything will be grand.
Save that thinking for your ride on "It's a Small World" at Disneyland.
and save a seat for haboob

[speakingtruth2power]

I am against this evil Crusade and all the war crimes, war profiteering and treason that has

accompanied it, but on this day in particular, I don't want to see another inspirational leader

murdered because he threatened the MIC's plans for perpetual war. I am also against half

measures but it has taken forty years or more, for corporate fascism to have come this far.

We must continue to work to elect those who believe that populism is the cure for fascism.

ST2P.

[danceswithyids]

Does anyone think speakingtruth2power has ever actually spoken truth to power, or just spewed his or her opinion on blogs? hmmmmmm

[DaisyMiller]

er... ah ... excuse me but where are all the Obama supporters on this list of comments?

not interested in the issues, just interested in the ads, the suits, the jets, the dancing on Ellen, the Obama-sponsored Randi Rhodes riots, the messianic love for the man, the name calling .... where, oh where, are the lovely left wing "progressives" on this list of comments?

bamboozled?

[CarlyCorday]

What's wrong, Daisy, tan't woo yead?

You have to read the comments, they won't come and find you.

[DaisyMiller]

Dear Carly: I read about five pages full of posts before I posted and never before had I seen such consistent skepticism of Obama on the Huffington Post. I thought that it was noteworthy. Perhaps I do not know all Obama supporting posters by name. Perhaps what I saw was a lot of anti-0bama posters plus more and more skeptical Obama supporters, skeptical that this announcement could fly in the face of what they thought they believed he believed.

[CostaMesaJoe]

There are seven pages to this thread.

You came to the party late.

Scroll through and try not to be so short-sighted.

[CostaMesaJoe]

WTF?
There are seven pages to this thread.

You came to the party late madam.

Don't be lazy.
Scroll through and try not to be so short-sighted.

[JavaCityGal]

Uh...there's lots of Obama supporters here, I've been posting up a storm myself, did you try scrolling down?

[DaisyMiller]

I read about five pages of them before I posted, thank you very much. The defenders of Obama seemed pretty scarce to me until I rustled up you guys and gals above.

[BlazingChalice]

I am really taking a hard look at Obama.

This is happening too often where he is saying one thing and his people are all over the place saying something else.

If he does not agree with these people why aren't they being fired??

Is he for complete withdrawal or not??

this 9 head campaign needs to stop.

[BOfever]

Firing is the fastest way to change, that's how Obama "unites" people right?

[haboob]

maybe better judgement in hiring ? think a little cha cha

[jsfox]

Yes he's for withdraw, but you cannot one day decide to to withdraw the troops and the next day have them home. It just doesn't work that way. Even if we could pull every single soldier out as fast as possible it's still going to take at least 18 months.

For those screaming blood on his hands. The real blood comes because you moved to fast and left some troops unprotected during the withdrawal. To me that would be almost as criminal as GWB getting us into this mess in the first place.

[jsfox]

60,000 in 2010. Folks keep this in perspective. Most military experts agree you cannot just pull the troops en masse. Most estimate that one to two brigades a month would be the safest for the troops. Now for those who don't know what a brigade is: anywhere from 1500-3200 hundred troops. So if you do the math using the 3200 number, by 2010 there should be over 100,000. So Obama advisor is still ahead of most military time lines.

Anybody who thinks al the troops will be out of Iraq in one year is absolutely delusional. It cannot be done safely.

[BOfever]

Agreed, but this is another case of Obama saying something that isn't reality. I thought Obama was the guy that was going to change Washington? This sounds like the same BS we have heard for the last 8 years.

[JavaCityGal]

Obama DID NOT say this -- an advisor provided a recommendation. I would bet that he has multiple advisors, saying multiple different things. It's up to good judgement to know that best course. And he's already told us the course he's taking, his stance has not changed, period.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

[chandler02]

This isn't Obama saying something!! This guy has said that he isn't representing the campaign when he says this.

Some people need to read the full article!

[jsfox]

Not sure I agree. same DC BS would be - we are going to have 50-60,000 troops in country for the next 100 years on permanent bases.

[JavaCityGal]

Agree with you. Obama has said repeatedly that he will be as careful getting our troops out as we were careless getting in.

[BlazingChalice]

Obama needs to grab a hold of his campaign and ask people to either stick to the script or leave.

Too many free lancing advisors. What is this? Presidency by committee ??

Obama time to grow some nuts and read the riot act to your staff.

[abdiel]

A-ha-ha!

By the last paragraph I found myself laughing at the semantic gymnastics of Susan Rice and Kahl.

Anyway, informed folks knew this stuff already. But this is hilarious for Bill Richardson. Richardson was interviewed on MSNBC answering some questions about why he chose to endorse Obama rather than Clinton. He politely started off by saying that both candidates would make great presidents but that there is something "different" about Obama. When asked for specifics, Richardson said that for him, Iraq is a very important issue, then he said the funny.

He said although Clinton has promised to start a draw down of forces in the first 90 days of her presidency, she has not committed herself to a complete withdrawal of all forces and has hinted about leaving permanent bases, while on the other hand, Obama has pledged a reasonable and safe complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces.

LOL. First, Obama has never pledged such a thing-in fact he and Clinton both seem to share the same idea of residual forces in Iraq. What's oddly humorous is that Richardson endorsed Obama not even knowing Obama's position on an issue important to himself. Richardson doesn't know squat about Obama's designs, he endorsed the guy because he's "somehow different" and that's about it. What a maroon...

Maybe Mr. Richardson will read the Sun's article and become enlightened. The only real difference between Obama and Clinton is that one wears pants and the other wears pantsuits.

[Kally]

Thank goodness someone noticed that. it seems to me all the good old boys like those pants better. Especially if they have an oversized codpiece to put in them. obama to this day does not know what the hell he is doing. He is a loose cannon turning anyway the people who are speaking to him want him to....watch the way this country really blows up if he manages to steal the job.

[abdiel]

You know, Kally --

Senator Reid has already told the American people that "things are being done" to ensure a clear winner by May 1. I personally am amazed that Democratic party members and lots of folks who identify themselves as "progressives" can be so cavalier about ending the electoral process while millions of people have not yet been heard.

You better believe that if a a leader in the republocrat party so brazenly announced what is nothing short of rigging that the democrats and "progressives" would be shouting foul from the rooftops.

This election is so tragic and pathetic on a million levels.