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

[CostaMesaJoe]

3primecubed is a byproduct of the 80,000 jobs lost in March.

Thanks Bush!

[EinChicago]

This is EXACTLY why I support HRC. After losing my own brother to an IED outside Basra, teh most important thing in the world to me is to bring our troops home. I jsut don't beleive for a second teh wishy washy Obama can do it. He will be plowed within a month of taking office by Neocons and it will take him years to develop enough of a political machine/spine to actually do anything.

[JavaCityGal]

I'm sorry that you lost your brother, very sorry. My family has a lot of military also, but I was blessed that they are okay. I'm surprised that with losing your brother, you would support the woman that voted to bring him to Iraq without even reading the NIE report, that is unforgivable to me. I believe that Obama is the only candidate that will get us out of Iraq. He was the only one against the war from the very beginning, and he has a very detailed plan to get us out of it. He is not beholden to lobbyists or foreign governments (like the $10 million given to the Clintons from Dubai and Arab Shieks), and so he is free to keep his promises to the American people, instead of keeping promises to those you are financially beholden to.

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

[jmk65]

he is going to owe a lot of people to which he has made false promises to get in the white house. how do you think he is where he is. he didn't do it alone.

[EinChicago]

Obama is more beholden to lobbysits than any other candidate. Look at his healthcare plan and connect the dots to the fact he has received more from Big Pharma than McCain and HRc combined. 2008 is simply too important to put a doe eyed naife like Obama in and let him spend four years being led around by his nose by the neocons. If HRc gets in, she brings with her most of Bill's prior machine. Will it be the same as having Bill back? No. Would it be as good as having Gore? No. But it's the next best thing. Obama has been given a free ride by those who wish payback once he is in. He is going to spend the first 3 years simply paying back all the favors it took to give him this free ride to where he is today.

[KQuark]

Sorry about your brother. Hillary has made no goals for withdrawing troops and is not committed to not having permanent bases in Iraq. If you really want to blame someone for your brother's death blame the people who sent them there like Hillary. Your logic is deeply flawed. Where was Hillary's spine when she voted for the war?

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

Hillary's plan has been very clearly stated. Start withdrawing troops within the first 60 day. Withdraw 1 - 2 brigades per month.

You either have not been paying attention, or you are purposely trying to misinform

[huffnpuffn]

With regard to the war, there is right:

Remove our military presence entirely without delay.

And there are many shades of wrong:

Stay forever, stay for at least 100 years, stay at least through 2013, keep 60000 troops there through 2010, etc.

[Aristotle79]

And to hell with the Iraqis? Who cares if immediate withdrawl creates a power vacuum and genocide.

Don't get me wrong, I advocate withdrawl as a policy, but as Obama says.. "We need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in".

When did progressives stop caring about genocide?

[huffnpuffn]

When? I don't know... maybe about the same time progressives decided white people don't always necessarily know what's best for the whole world.

The Iraqis, if that even deserves to be a category of people, need to figure out their own differences. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Standing with our foot on the geyser below as we are now will at best only prolong the inevitable.

We do not have the answers here. We don't even understand the questions. Let's get out before another American life is wasted.

[BillZBubb]

"Change you can believe in!" *


* If you are a sucker.

[ErikW65]

*Not if you are a cynical pessimist looking for faults in the clouds of delusion.

[transendentilist]

I have often wondered about Obama's slogan..."­Yes we can!" Yes we can...what­? He never says that part. And his promise of bringing a new electorate in America. I see nothing at all new about Obama or his supporters. The majority of Obamians don't even get his message.

[gwpriester]

Totally agree. The next president is going to have to live with the results of George W. Bush and his republican enablers.

We invaded the country. We destroyed the country. We have to do our best to undo the damage Mr. Bush and his chicken hawk congress has inflicted.

What needs to happen is the mission of the troops needs to be redefined (if it ever was defined in the first place--doubtful) so that they become helpers in the process and not targets in an out of control civil war.

And the next president needs to eat humble pie and try to really put together a coalition of nations to try to maintain the peace. Not for the sake of the multinationals but for the people of Iraq.

It's not what the public wants to hear but it is the responsible thing to do.

[JavaCityGal]

There are some Obama haters here who live to find a shred of anything that they can use against him. Just as we don't crucify Hillary for what her advisor say (heck look at Mark Penns Columbia adventures), we don't crucify Obama for what an advisor did or didn't say. The advisor said it, NOT Obama. Obama was against the Iraq War in 2002, when Hillary voted for it. Obama has not flip flopped like Hillary, he always was, and still is against the Iraq War. Go to his website and his views are very clearly laid out. Even this week on Chris Matthews Hardball, Obama was 100% adamant about getting our troops out as soon as possible, period.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

excuse me??? Did you read the comments on the Mark Penn story? The Obama supporters DID CRUCIFY Clinton for that.

[LeftLeanWing]

There is a major difference.

Mark Penn is lobbying for a trade agreement that his candidate is against. This is a conflict of interest on the part of Mark Penn. If he wants that trade agreement to go through the best move he could make would be to oppose the candidate and would proabably veto it and he is her Campaign Manager.

The problem is a conflict of interest for Mark Penn, not Hillary in this case.

[antaeus]

It's not about "crucifying" him but rather pointing out that major reason for his candidacy is going to prove a far more difficult problem for him than taking an easy and popular election-year stance. I don't care how "adamant" he claims to be now--next February the reality of the quagmire with no easy solutions is going to make him disappoint a lot of people who voted for him. I actually hope this might be the start of his coming to grips with the prospect that he's going to have to make more difficult compromises than his rhetoric has thus far suggested, and that his team is trying to ease his supporters in to that new reality.

[jmk65]

noone is crucifying. does that mean obama is jesus??? :) sorry. you tee'd that one up java.
and frankly, having been regularly reading huffpo for a couple months now most of the nasty, crucifying emails seem to come from obama folks.

obama was not in congress when the vote came up so you cannot compare any speech he gave to the actual responsibility of having a congressional vote. what is it that people cannot see with that fact?! hillary is not pro-war.

i think hillary supporters (though i can only speak for myself) are frustrated by two major issues: obama's hypocrisy (says one thing and does another) and how he is being treated by the press (like a demigod). watch this major issue be swept under the rug. i'm sure chris matthews and keith olbermann already have taken care of it for him. i feel like saying "take it home!" already with how biased they are.

also this hillary supporter is also frustrated by how poorly her campaign is being run because she truly is , in my mind, the better candidate. and i hope she can take this opportunity to reinforce that. she may not be the better speechifier but she is more qualified for what will be a horrendous cleaning up project in the white house.

and most importantly i hope we can all come together and vote democratic in november because the thought of mccain as president is quite frightening.

[Knute]

Everyone plese take a deep breath, stop shreiking, and think about what you're saying here.

Since when did an ADVISOR'S background policy paper become the candidate's policy? Putting the demagoguery aside, do you really want a President who doesn't solicit advise from people with different views? Do you want a President who only surrounds him/herself with syncophants? Really? Haven't we already had 7 years of policy myopia and a refusal to look at conflicting points of view.

Please, read "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," by Doris Goodwin, then post here on whether you'd like a politician unexposed to differing opinions (like Bush), or whether you'd prefer that an intellectually curious President who considers divergent opinions (like Lincoln).

I've worked for years as a policy advisor, and "recommendations" are often (usually?) rejected by the policy maker. This isn't a controversy. This is people trying to create a controversy because its in their politcal self interest for there to be a controversy.

One iota of intellectual honesty tells us there's nothing here until the candidate says he's embracing the document. Reading divergent opinions is a way to test and confirm policy beliefs. It is a sign of strength, not weakness. Prohibiting a candidate from reading differing opinions out of fear that documents might be leaked is profoundly short-sighted. These attacks encourage simple-mindedness more reflective of "no new taxes under any circumstances" and "stem cells are alive" dogma than thoughful Democratic policy making.

[Oldtt]

This argument rests on the assumption that the candidate takes no ownership of policies being espoused privately by his most senior advisors, and should be judged on the basis of generalities given in campaign speeches. This is a dangerous standard for evaluating Obama's future actions.

[haboob]

spot on analysis

[ErikW65]

Will you apply the same standard to the other candidates?

[Knute]

The reason these kinds of documents are confidential is precisely because the candidate takes no ownership of the policies.

One must base their "trust" of a candidate on something besides the candidates reading material. If you don't trust Obama, fine. If its because of evidence that he lied about his "professor status" or "coming under sniper fire in Bosnia," fine. If you don't trust because he or she gives you a bad feeling, fine.

But it encourages politicians to be mindlessly dogmatic to mistrust them because of their reading material, or because they soliticit (or even encourage) divergent thinking from their advisors.

[JohnTalbutt]

Folks this is ridiculous. I am fully convinced we must withdraw and wrote letters to my local paper, contacted politicians, demonstrated and marched for over five years. Now I believe we have achieved a consensus that can force withdrawal but I believe intelligent discussion of how is required.

3Prime and a couple of others only want to insult and disrupt. They are not interested in withdrawal or anything else because as limited as they are, they certainly know that people aren't persuaded by their tactics.

I suggest that we make no response to them or to the ones who respond to them in order that those who really wish to exchange ideas can do so.

[sockman]

ummm...tha­t should be "all that glitters is not Gold"

[sockman]

Well if he wants to adopt a foreign policy similar to the first Bush and Ronald Reagan he would need a war won't he? With Obama we all have to remember that "all the glitters is not gold".

[CostaMesaJoe]

TO ALL CLINTONISTAS:

HILLARY HAD A VOTE TO BEGIN THIS WAR.
THIS IS IRREFUTABLE.

SHE HAS BLOOD ON HER HANDS.

HER RECKONING IS AT A HAND.....

[haboob]

and when obama decided to also fund the war he then by your logic has blood on his hands,

[ErikW65]

He didn't want to play chicken with Bush, and with the troops caught in the middle. Once Hillary gave Bush the keys, and the bus was in the ditch, there were few options to get out safely.

[jmk65]

obama never voted fro it but funded the whole thing.
and btw her vote was for military force ONLY if inspectors didn't work.
blame bush.

[ErikW65]

Then why a no vote on the Levin Amendment. which would have enforced such a rule???

[CostaMesaJoe]

Like Saddam WAS GOING to let the inspectors back in.
EVERYONE (Bushies included) knew he was willing to go down in flames to preserve his Arab "honor".

The typical Clintonista hackneyed talking point against Obama.
Why did he vote to fund then?

Yeah, he should have just let the soldiers stand out there with their d*cks in the wind. Soldiers are Americans too and they come from all States.

You admire your candidate for voting to start a war that was going to be made INEVITABLE by Bush - now your counter-point is why supply them?

Your candidate had a HAND in starting this war and don't forget it.
Many haven't and won't. Her reckoning is at hand......­.

[tbone99]

yes, but I hate to break it to you, since I'm sure you'd love to dwell 5 years ago, time has moved on.... ,we have a new decision. Go Or Stay?- it's not about the past or being right in the past, its about NOW.

what's your solution?

[CostaMesaJoe]

Like Hillary doesn't DWELL on the past.
Her whole "experience" is based on the past and somone elses resume.

[Oldtt]

Last month senior Obama foreign policy advisor Samantha Power frankly told a British interviewer that Obama would not be bound by any Iraq withdrawal plans crafted as part of a political campaign. Earlier, another senior advisor Austan Goolsbee reassured Canadians not to be concerned with campaign rhetoric about NAFTA. The latest 'revelation' involves Georgetown professor Colin Kahl, senior advisor to Obama on Iraq issues, who has proposed a phased pullout which leaves significant forces for at least two years. Hillary Clinton has also tempered her withdrawal timetable by suggesting continued special forces troop presence in the Kurdish north combined with embassy guards and a training mission, which Obama and his supporters have attacked repeatedly as Cheney-lite. There is nothing wildly unreasonable about Prof. Kahl's planning, but it is very disingenuous for Obama to criticize Clinton for proposing that which he himself intends to do. As for Obama's enraptured supporters, they need to become less naive and more realistic toward their candidate.

[ErikW65]

Please substantiate your accusation that Sen. Obama has criticized Clinton for " for proposing that which he himself intends to do."

The Clintons and some supporters are making up reality, as well as the rules, as they go.

[Oldtt]

I think that it's reasonable to believe that 2-year Senator Obama is being guided on his Iraq Plan B policies by his most senior Iraq advisor. The only other way for voters accurately to determine the Senator's real intent is for Senator Obama to refute Kahl's memo directly and lay out a specific and binding policy; or, we can just wait and see what eventual policy Obama implements once in office. Absent either of these, my comment is fair.

[jmk65]

exactly right. yet everyone's rose-colored glasses are still foggy!

[CarlyCorday]

Oldtt, thanks for the refreshing sanity from "the other side" for a change.

(Can you do anything about the troll? Might behoove ya, if you could.)

[haboob]

just words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ULkUPLhWw&feature=related

[haboob]

i understand the meaning of just words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elBQYHvM9Ew

[WyteFyre]

Obama may end up being more of a warmonger than his supporters are expecting him to be! However, I do apologize to the HuffPo crowd that I don't like Obama... I really tried to. It's just that I don't trust him - and I think that the Republicans are going to take him down politically. I think that Hillary is tougher and more experienced and could have been a great president. I'm very disapointed in the liberals that they didn't give her the support she deserved.

[Star123]

I agree with you. I was against the war in my family room, Obama was in some speech in Illinois. It is not that simple--he also voted the money right along when he got to the Senate. Either candidate supposedly determined to end this will have to face reality--and reality means not leaving some troops to be vulnerable while others go and sort of being stalemated. All the speeches in the world won't change that. For all you people who love this guy, I guess the rest of us may be living with your decision. At least you won't have the bumpersticker that says, "Don't blame me, I voted for Clinton." You will be the ones to blame.