Obama Advisor: 60,000 Troops Should Stay In Iraq Through 2010

Fact: Sen. Obama's pledge is to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months from when he takes office. That date is May 20, 2010.

Fact: Mr. Kahl, the advisor in question, wrote that he would recommend that we keep a residual force in Iraq until the end of 2010.

I don't find fault with the New York Sun's assessment that Mr. Kahl's recommendation is "at odds" with Obama's pledge, but, just because an advisor recomends that Obama, in effect, break his pledge, it still doesn't mean that Obama has in fact, broken his pledge, or that he plans to do so. It just means he has advisors who feel free to state their honest opinions, even if they are at odds with their candidate's stated positions. Actually, that's what I want, a president who will listen to opinions that are different from his or her own. (And by the way, Mr. Kahl qualified his recommendation: "...although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground.")
The other alternative is a president surrounded by a group of sycophantic yes-people. No thanks!

Now let's talk about the other candidates' advisors! (Mark Penn, cough cough.)

I think Obama has been consistent, but consistently deceptive, from the beginning of the campaign. Like Clinton and Edwards, Obama has always ONLY spoken of withdrawing "combat troops". But, combat troops are only a fraction of the total troops in Iraq. In addition, there are about 160,000 "contractors" in Iraq as well. So, pulling out all "combat troops" and still leaving 60,000 occupiers in Iraq is completely consistent. The 3 major Democratic candidates have never said they would end the occupation, ever. They just made is sound that way.

Don't even get me started on "Bomb Iran" boy.

I'm voting for Nader...I don't give a sh_t what anyone thinks! At least Nader is honest!

This issue amounts to nitpickiing and gotcha politics. Going through campaign advisors' writings to find inconsistencies (May 2010 vs. "the end of 2010," big deal...) is an excercise in journalism, but I seriously doubt this will sway any voters
.
If what you really care about is getting US troops and citizens out of Iraq (and I suspect this is not the case with some anti-Obama posters on this thread....) then you can vote idealistically for Nader, or pragmatically for Obama. McCain would be out of the question, and Hillary simply has no credibilty left after all her the last two weeks of inconsistencies and repeated, identical, mistaken memories of exagerated foreign policy experience.

i hope some of you are beginning to see how this game works. your views on matters of empire carry no weight.

The troll spin is that Blackwater USA received its first contract during the DLC DINO Clinton Administration....TRUE.....the DLC President and the GOP NEOCON CONGRESS BOTH gave the Blackwater group their authorization and their funding.....

Whether Clinton or McBush.....you get the same MIC feast for the Corporatists.

I'm going to wait on Obama's response to this, but why is everyone freaking out about this. He said that his withdrawal plan would be over a span of 16 months. He won't be inaugurated until 2009...DO THE MATH !!!....This isn't anything new, and his position hasn't changed on this.

until those words actually come from his mouth i"ll wait to judge. besides an advisor offers advice a president listens ,gathers information and then he decides. bushes problem was he had good advisors and good intelligence which he ignored and did what cheney said.

Senator Obama needs to understand that we expect him to get us out of Iraq as soon as he is sworn in. Anything else will be viewed as another Hillary Lieberman Clinton in Black make up. I am a staunch Obama supporter but he needs to clarify his Iraq position NOW.

McCain will win anyway. Who cares????

Silly kids. Obama's Children of the Corn will make excuse for him like the Massachusetts Moon bats that defend the Governor Deval Administration. These guys are using this as a get rich quick scheme to sale more books while the only thing you'll be left with is change in your pocket.

tomorrow Obama can say he is a Republican and you will make an excuse for that too!

60,000 soldiers.
80,000 soldiers.
100,000 contractors.
All to do what, again?
Counter-insurgency.
Insurgency.
Insurgents.
While I am glad that so many HUFFPO commentors are still aware of the war in Iraq, I remain appalled at the MSM reporting, and many comments.
Terrorism 101.
Remember "shock-and-awe"?
Remember that we invaded a sovereign country for no good reason, killing maybe a million now, but hundreds of thousands for sure.
Do you remember that?
A militaristic, war-mongering group of uniformed terrorists invaded a sovereign country and destroyed its army and its security system so that it could continue to occupy that country some five years later.
All, to get control of its oil.
Did someone say insurgency?
Those Iraqis who opposed the invasion, be they Sunni or Shia militias are the insurgents.
Did they have a good reason to oppose the invasion, and the continuing occupation?
I think so.
What do these insurgents want?
An end to the occupation.
What do we want?
To continue to occupy so that we can end the insurgency.
Thus, the hundred year war drones on.
Do not expect Obama or Hillary to end the unjust war against the Iraqi people.
Until the American people can understand and accept the legitimacy of the insurgencya, and the insurgents, we are doomed.
Until we truly END our occupation, there can be no peace.
Peace.

Only after three years in office can you tell whether the president keeps his words about withdrawing troops. By that time more people would have died. We may not have read the fine line on his/her pledge - I plan to withdraw troops from Iraq when I become President........... that is, a token amount of troops.
Get these politicians to sign their pledge in black and white now. Once they get voted there is no stopping them.

There is nothing shocking about this point. The Senator has continually stated we need to phase out in a careful manner and mentioned a 16 month time frame. Count the months from 01/20/2009 and you have 2010. Where were you guys with your " don't care for the troops" outrage when Hillary sent them to war? Where was the disdain when your patriotic President didn't provide the proper equipment to keep them safe?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)."

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!

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.