Obama Adviser Calls for Troops To Stay in Iraq Through 2010

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: The New York Sun

WASHINGTON — 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).”

Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center’s Web site as a policy brief.

Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position. Nonetheless, the paper could provide clues as to the ultimate size of the residual American force the candidate has said would remain in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat brigades. The campaign has not publicly discussed the size of such a force in the past.

Read more: http://www.nysun.com/politics/obama-adviser-calls-troops-stay-iraq-through-2010

[onehandle]

1. No matter who wins, our troops will be their in some number for decades.

Note the giant fortress in the Green Zone.

We're going nowhere.

[Earth_First]

3. Agreed.

Germany, Japan, South Korea all come to mind...

It was spelled out in great detail by the Project for a New American Century by individuals who are much larger (and well-funded) than the parties themselves.

Party lines will not affect our presence in Iraq.

[Earth_First]

4. Exhibit A:

[enid602]

13. cost

I don't agree. staying in Iraq costs us $15 billion per month. Of course, new management in the White House could bring it a bit more under control, but staying in Iraq will bankrupt us in the long run.

[Clear Blue Sky]

10. I agree as well.

The area is strategically important and like S Korea, Japan and Germany, we will likely be there closer to McCain's estimate of 100 years.

[babylonsister]

2. So this guy wrote something on his own that wasn't authorized by

Obama, yet Obama's getting all this 'credit'? Shades of Wright; guilt by association.

[TomClash]

26. I just asked someone in his campaign and am awaiting a reply

If this is true it is a bad sign and I'm pissed.

[Azazel]

28. Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq.

You can't just write it off.

[struggle4progress]

36. Kahl wrote this for a different organization: it's not campaign-related

[enough]

5. This is the second time I've seen this today. There's something I don't get.

We are now in April of 2008. He will not take office till January of 2009. 2010 begins 12 months after that. How is this so wildly different from the expressed policy?

[WTyler]

12. It isn't

I think he might have 4 months more on his time line. So, an Obama adviser lays out a plan that is basically Obama's plan with a couple of months added on. Pretty much the definition of not news.

[Azazel]

27. Read the article. He is talking about the END of 2010.

That's the time frame for reducing troops to 60,000-80,000. That's TWO years. It is also military insanity. A reduced troop level will simply make our soldiers more vulnerable to attack. If we are going to get them out, which we should, we should get them ALL out. The sooner the better.

[movonne]

6. How many times are you going to post this...is that the moonie times??

[madrchsod]

16. a conservative paper

not quite as bad as moonie tunes

[Amerigo Vespucci]

19. I posted it once. Does that answer your question?

[Azazel]

29. Thanks for your post.

We need to know things like this if we are going to cut through the jive talk and get Democratic politicians to really get us out of Iraq.

[struggle4progress]

34. A bogus paper, with almost no circulation, intended to lend credibility to their neocon ed page

which pushes sparkling ideas like "Dick Cheney should run for President"

The name was chosen because there was previously a New York paper by the same name, so the careless will assume this fishwrap (founded c. 2002) has a long history

[Democrats_win]

7. Boldness: one second after the oath, order our troops home.

As American's we've watched as the 2006 anti-Iraq war election was ignored. This is called a slippery slope. They all patted us on the head and said, "We know better than you. The troops must stay or the sky will fall." Americans shouldn't accept any more excuses. Bush will be gone next January 20th. The war must end then or they will continue to find ways to give money to the military and their fraudulant contractors forever. End this Fricking war one second after taking the oath.

JUST DO IT! It is the duty of the next president to end bush's war. These men and women who died in Iraq did in fact die for nothing. We the people allowed that to happen. Americans were fools to allow the world's greatest moron and the worst human to EVER be born in America to lie us into this immoral war.

Then, order Bush's arrest.

[Warpy]

8. That's not what Obama himself says

He needs to have a talk with that guy. Obama has said again and again that an immediate reduction in troops and an orderly withdrawal from Iraq would be one of the first three things he would order.

[noamnety]

9. "Reduction"

A "reduction" is consistent with this statement. This troop estimate is also consistent with what Raed Jarrar has been saying is the estimated troop level Obama and Clinton both plan to leave behind after they "withdraw" "noncombat" troops.

(not enough air quotes in the world for that sentence.)

None of the candidates has asked for a real withdrawal.

[happygoluckytoyou]

11. MARCHED IN.... MARCH OUT....

IT WILL NOT HAPPEN OVERNIGHT... AND TALK OF DATES AND PLANS ARE CUTE...

BUT WE ALL KNOW OBAMA'S STAND ON THE WAR, AND ON REMOVING THE TROOPS...

WE MUST RELY ON HIS STANDING TO HIS WORD, AND DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR....AMERICA...
AND FOR THE COUNTRY OF IRAQ, WHICH WE BROKE...

ONCE HE REMOVES THE $$$$$$$$$$, REMOVING THE TROOPS WILL FOLLOW AT A GOOD PACE

[Political Heretic]

14. I use igoogle, and thus I RSS nearly fourty different national / international news sources

I have seen this story nowhere but the ooooooh so repudible new york sun.

[madrchsod]

15. this "story" started at 8 this morning

since i have`t checked gd:p in the last hour this may be the 4th post today...

[tuckessee]

17. What's a couple thousand more dead GI's?

Small price to pay for the politically ambitious to ingratiate themselves with their military-industrial base.

[mcollier]

18. 16 months from Jan 2009 gets you to where????

Also, 160,000 troops minus 80,000 gets you to what troop level?

That's finally moving in the right direction from my perspective...

***Spelling contest perhaps??? HAHAHHAHAHAHA Joke...

Vote for Barack Obama, but for what he represents, his message, his wisdom, his intellect, his judgment, his commitment to helping every American. We can all be a part of strenghtning American had charting a new course.

I ask you to join the Obama team to help take our country in an new direction, one of openness, honesty, integrity, hope, respect, wise judgment and prosperity... Together we can make the difference. We all have worked hard to get power back to the people. With Barack Obama, we have that opportunity...


Visit www.BarackObama.com Find out how you can join the movement.

Thanks.

[McCamy Taylor]

20. This is not good. 2 years is enough time to bring them all home.

Is the adviser thinking of leaving troops to protect the oil fields?

[elocs]

21. Umm, 2009 + 2010 is two years. This is going to be a withdrawal, not a bugout.

That would be a 2 year draw down compared to the 5 years the troops have already been there.

[Azazel]

30. What's wrong with a bugout?

And don't give me any b.s. about America's prestige in the world (which is already in the toilet), or preventing a "bloodbath" in Iraq (which is already in progress).

[SquireJons]

22. Advisor's don't make policy

And I hope that's true in this case. The American public wants out of Iraq, not a draw down.

There is no reason why we need to be in Iraq 9 months after the new President takes office. That is sufficient time to carefully remove our 300k personnel from the country. Remember, there are more "contractors" in Iraq then soldiers.

But it is unthinkable that we would be in that country in large numbers one year after the "regime change" in Washington D.C. First of all, what is the point? It seems pretty clear to me that the current government does not enjoy the support of the people of Iraq. So staying only allows a puppet government to exist. Now that may be the real reason we end up staying because the second we're gone, they're gone too. Does that mean that Iraq will be ungovernable? I don't think so.

It will take some time for a new thug to take power and have support of majority of the people. Iraq might splinter into new nations like Bosnia, but after a spasm of revenge killings, I think things will even out. It is in the best interests of all nations in the region to avoid a genocidal civil war, and so it won't happen. There may be hate, but someone has to give them the guns and money. Currently that is Saudi Arabia and Iran. Unless they want a proxy war on their boarders, which is really bad for business, then they will find a peaceful solution. The Sunni/Shia problem has been part of their culture for 1200 years now, so I think they can work it out without genocide.

Bring the troops (and contractors) home. Spend the money on renewable energy, and let the Chinese deal with the middle east for a while. They won't like it any better than we have.

[Azazel]

31. Tell that to Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Richard Perle, David Addington

et al.

[SquireJons]

33. They didn't make the neocon policy

That was already set. The did implement it though once they stopped being advisor's and started being high ranking govt officials. Campaign advisor's are a dime a dozen.

[alarimer]

23. I am not voting for him if he does not agree to start pulling them out right away.

I am voting for a continuation of this stupid fucking illegal occupation. OUT NOW! I don't care what happens.

[ckramer]

35. me neither should that be true n/t

[goforit]

24. Since when are the advisers given a public forum. Rediculous!

[TomClash]

25. Screw him

And screw the NY Sun - a neo-con rag.

Kahl was in the Bush Administration and does stability operations work. That's a new euphemism for rigging the political structure through light force and counterinsurgency.

If he's a key adviser, we're in trouble.

[Vinca]

32. The key word here is "adviser."

And Obama disagrees with the advice.

[DogPoundPup]

37. Yea? And Hillary is bringiing 'em home yesterday

after she voted to send 'em into the quagmire! YeeHaw!

[QC]

38. This change sounds an awful lot like the same old shit. n/t

[kiranon]

39. The troops need to come home now not in 2 years or 100 years

It won't be any better in 2 years than it is now just more casualties. I will vote for whoever has a policy to get them home as fast as possible even if that is McCain (which I highly doubt). Perhaps none of the above will be the answer.

[TankLV]

40. Oppsie! Quick - hide this thread - don't want ANOTHER obama LIE to become public

to show what a fucking HYPOCRIT he is...

but go ahead - on with your spew about how much a warmonger Hillary is...!!!

[ohio2007]

41. Iran joined militias in battle for Basra

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3690010.ece

Denile is a river in Egypt.
de Tigress runs through Basra