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

[WildFancyLady]

What happen to Obama being against the war and wanting to get all the troops out. 60K troops in Iraq til 2010 is unacceptable. We need our troops out now.

[Colonial82]

This was an advisor's recommendation, he doesn't agree with it. You see he has many different advisers with different opinions because he does not want YES men/women.

P.S. He has always said within 16months since you can't just take all out at the same because that would be dangerous.

[DaRight]

.....

It's the same lie the 2006 DEMS told....

They want to ruin GWB with the war.....

They have NO intention of being RESPONSIBLE for actually causing the DEATH and destruction THEIR early withdrawl would cause.....

The rhetoric is for the HUFFO ALLSTARS, MOVEON, KOS KIDS etc.......

.

[rubberneck]

It will be fun to watch the obama radicals cry in the kook aid, when he doesn't end the war. If you think the first act of Obama is to retreat, you have another thing coming. LOL...it will be fun to watch you people then defend him and his war efforts. I can hear it now, "He'll fix Bush's mess"! LOL

[Colonial82]

Since when has there been anything Obama said that he doesn't want to end the war? This was an advisor, he has advisors with difference opinions since he wants a range of views, he has always stated that. I am sorry if Clinton only wants YES men/women

Stop smearing

[wayoutleft]

no one will be permitted to become president who would dismantle the colonial presence in iraq. the system is rigged enough to prevent that. obama will be allowed to be president if he leaves iraq to the oppression of american private interests; otherwise hillary will "win". (as soon as obama had an insurmountable lead in terms of delegates, the rules disappeared and the race was declared even. ) it's fair to say now that the political bestiary can be divided into barack- and everyone to his right of whatever party. it is extremely important to stand up for barack now. he will be shot by fascists unless he appears to give them enough on iraq. the right will definitely assassinate him if they think he is inevitable (like robert kennedy was) and about to dismantle iraq.

[Sabreen60]

Some of these comments are just pathetic. The article does not say this is Obama's position. What was your SAT score? Do you not comprehend? What is an advisor? Do you want a president who has "yes" people around him? I don't!! But here's the rub - those of you who have never been for Obama are just not for Obama. This article is another "nothing" you will use to justify your position. So be it.

[Cbag]

And so the mask comes off. While Obama goes around the country criticizing Hillary for her war vote and then goes on to further criticize her withdrawal plan, the Obama magic show finally tells the truth. Once again Obama talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. Go ahead and vote for the racist liar, but don’t blame me when we reach the end of the yellow brick road and find the Emerald City is orchestrated by the Wizard of Oz.

[GhostintheMachine]

Whether you agree with the reasons that got us into Iraq or not it doesn't matter the right answer now for both the Iraqiis and the soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice is to complete the mission and not end it like we did in Vietnam.

[Sabreen60]

Are you kidding???? I pass by the Viet Nam War Memorial Wall at least twice a week. There are 58,000 names on the wall. Complete the mission???? That's why there are 58,000 names of dead Americans on that wall because the idiots in power "wanted to complete the mission". It was stupid and criminal then and it's stupid and criminal now. There is NO mission to complete in Iraq. The US could have NEVER won the Viet Nam war, unless we had nuked them. As long as US troops remain in Iraq there will be no peace. The only way to exact peace is by diplomacy. Obama will bring our people home. And I believe it will happen before 2010.

[GhostintheMachine]

No, the military was never given the chance to win in Vietnam, the politicians never let them.

[GhostintheMachine]

And Obama said he didn't believe what Rev Wright said in his sermons, watch that change. It is n't hope and change its still the same.

[inthecolour]

Talk about irresponsible journalism.

What does this have to do with Obama's position on bringing troops home?

Some dude suggested something to Obama. Suddenly this means that Obama is lying about his position?

Faulty logic, anyone?

[timeforachangenow]

me thinks most of the color has drained from your face...8)

[haboob]

looks like the verneer of hope and change is being exposed for what it really is

[Colonial82]

Read the article

[GhostintheMachine]

You just don't get it do you.yes it was is advisor who said it. Its called prepping the battlefield. At first it is his advisors position but later it becomes his as the public is slowly moved that direction. If you think the Democratic party will remove us from Iraq you are sadly mistaken.

[MontanaMaven]

It's not just one adviser. This "Center for a New American Security" and his advsor Karen Kornbluh's membership in "The New American Foundation" sets off all kinds of flags with me. New this and new that. "Plan for the New American Century" brought us Iraq. New World Orders and New America. I should try not to get too paranoid (Please Naomi Klein, get out of my brain). After all there was the "New Deal" as a push back from socialism and fascism. But the New Deal was, in the end, an effort to save capitalism and rein in the free, wheeeee, market.
Kornbluh produced a “memorandum” for NAF in 2004 that argues, “Americans are eager to embrace the many advantages -- flexibility, autonomy and potential for upside” that globalization presents..
What about the "Foundation for the Evolution of America" that Ted Halstead, founder of the New American Foundation" is on the board of? http://www.evolutionofamerica.org/index.cfm?sid=1&pageid=122&parid=53

Glen Ford at blackagendareport charged that the Obama campaign is "rigged to look like a movement". It's a great marketing campaign. But it could be putting perfume on a hog. Because something smells about the length and breadth of these advisors and their "New America". It looks like with three neo-liberal candidates in a time when neo liberalism is finally being exposed for the lie that it is, we are so screwed. ( from "Perfume on a Hog" at http://montanamaven.com)

[steel71]

Get over it, the President doesn't run this country.

[chandler02]

They did a total chop job on this article!!!! Important parts that were "accidentally" left out:

Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position.

Obama campaign:
“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 said.

Mr. Kahl yesterday said, “This has absolutely zero to do with the campaign.” He added, “There are elements that are consistent with the Democratic Party’s approach, and I will leave it to others to find out if there are elements that are not.”

[Benmyoho]

This is the second trial balloon for the Kool Aid drinkers. The first was from Ms. Powers, stating the same pitch. I wonder how the Obamaniacs will justify the "reality" of continuing with the Bush Doctrine.

[JadedAggie]

So you think Bush would have half the troops out by 2011. I mean it's disappointing, but let's not act like idiots in response.

[suntzu]

Obama has NEVER said he would withdraw all troops in two years. He said he will start withdrawing COMBAT TROOPS two brigades at a time (moderate increments) over two years but still leave non-combat support troops in place. What that number will be is anyone's guess right now.

Clinton's plan is similar, differing primarily in the numbers, the time frame, and the details. On winding down the war, there is not a whole lot of difference between the two. There is a HUGE difference between them and McCain, and this is what Democrats should be focusing on. Nothing to see here, move on please.

[chandler02]

Funny that this "excerpt" doesn't mention that it wasn't written on behalf of the campaign, and doesn't reflect the view of the campaign.

The title of "key senior advisor" is also misleading.

Obama meets with people of all views on the political spectrum. How can you expect to get the full picture if you aren't open to hearing different perspectives? How can you tell that your choice is right, if you only hear one side of the story?

Obama has met with Colin Powell, Pro-Life groups...tons of people who think differently than him. He is not scared of people who think differently, and that shows true wisdom.

[mtrav]

He's got some pretty fu**ed up advisors, doesn't he?